Skip to main content
Glama
NotoriousArnav

EventHorizon MCP Server

unregister_from_event

Remove your registration from a specific event in the EventHorizon platform by providing the event ID.

Instructions

Unregister the current user from an event.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesThe ID of the event to unregister from

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool registration and inline handler function for 'unregister_from_event'. This is the primary implementation that gets the API client, calls unregisterFromEvent, and formats the response.
    server.tool(
      'unregister_from_event',
      'Unregister the current user from an event.',
      {
        event_id: z.number().describe('The ID of the event to unregister from')
      },
      async ({ event_id }) => {
        try {
          const apiClient = getClient();
          await apiClient.unregisterFromEvent(event_id);
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Successfully unregistered from event ${event_id}.` }]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}` }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Zod schema defining the input parameter 'event_id' for the tool.
    {
      event_id: z.number().describe('The ID of the event to unregister from')
    },
  • Helper method in EventHorizonClient that performs the actual API DELETE request to unregister the user from the event.
    async unregisterFromEvent(eventId: number): Promise<void> {
      try {
        await this.client.delete(`/api/events/${eventId}/unregister/`);
      } catch (error) {
        throw new Error(`Failed to unregister from event ${eventId}: ${getErrorMessage(error)}`);
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('unregister') but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other users, or has side effects like notifications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like reversibility or permissions, nor does it hint at return values or error conditions. For a tool that modifies user-event relationships, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'event_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain event ID format or sourcing). This meets the baseline score when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('unregister') and target ('the current user from an event'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'manage_registration' or 'delete_event', which might also handle event-related removals, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage_registration' or 'delete_event'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., user must be registered first) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NotoriousArnav/EventHorizon-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server