GLØDI

Register for an arrangement

register_for_event

Register a person for an arrangement or course: session_id for one session or arrangement_id for the whole one (from list_events), pricing_tier_id when it has tiers, and the person's name, mobile number and e-mail. A code goes to the person; confirm_with_code registers them and, for a paid arrangement, answers with the payment link.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "phone": "<phone>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "register_for_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The person's full name, as they say it.
`note`	No	A short note to the clinic in the person's words. Never health details.
`email`	Yes	The person's e-mail: the confirmation and any payment link go there.
`phone`	Yes	The person's mobile number. The code goes there by SMS.
`guests`	No	People who come with the person (an open-house or time-slot arrangement); 0 for the person alone.
`locale`	No	Answer language: nb (Norwegian) or en.	nb
`session_id`	No	One session (session_id from list_events).
`arrangement_id`	No	The whole arrangement (arrangement_id from list_events).
`payment_method`	No	How the person pays on the payment link: card or Vipps.	card
`pricing_tier_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	code_sent: ask the person for the code, then call confirm_with_code.
`channel`	Yes	sms or email.
`purchase`	Yes
`expires_at`	Yes	When the code stops working.
`code_sent_to`	Yes	The masked phone or email the code went to.
`confirmation_id`	Yes	Pass it to confirm_with_code with the code.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds real behavioral context: a verification code is sent to the person, the registration is not completed until confirm_with_code, and paid arrangements yield a payment link. It still doesn't say what happens to an unconfirmed code (expiry, repeat attempts), so it's not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, no filler, with the required identity fields and the id-scoping decision front-loaded before the code/confirm step. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the call's purpose, the branching scope choice, and the two-step completion flow. Remaining details (payment_method, locale, guests) are adequately handled by the schema, though the confirmation-code lifecycle is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 90%, so the schema already explains name, email, phone/SMS, note, guests, locale and payment_method. The description's parameter content (session vs arrangement scope, tiers) largely restates what the schema says. Baseline 3 for high-coverage schema with marginal added meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Register a person for an arrangement or course') and immediately distinguishes the two registration scopes via session_id vs arrangement_id, pointing at list_events as the source. An agent can tell this apart from book_appointment and confirm_with_code without reading the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete selection rules: session_id for one session, arrangement_id for the whole arrangement, pricing_tier_id 'when it has tiers'. It also names the follow-up sibling confirm_with_code and the condition that selects it. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule against book_appointment or join_waitlist, so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GLØDI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?