evite-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource, from event lifecycle (create, update, cancel, reinstate, duplicate) to guest management (add, update, remove, list) and messaging (send_message, broadcast, list_messages). The few similar names like evite_send and evite_send_message are clearly differentiated by their descriptions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency4/5
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent evite_ verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_events, create_event, update_guest). However, a few exceptions such as evite_healthcheck, evite_rsvp, evite_send, and evite_broadcast deviate by using bare verbs or nouns, creating minor inconsistency but overall readability is preserved.
Tool Count3/5
With 20 tools, the server sits at the upper edge of what might be expected for a domain-specific MCP, and the count feels slightly heavy. Yet each tool addresses a distinct need across event management, guest interactions, messaging, and photos, so the size is justifiable even though it borders on excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full event lifecycle (create, update, cancel, reinstate, duplicate, list, get) and guest lifecycle (add, update, remove, list, rsvp, rsvp_summary). Minor omissions exist such as the lack of a dedicated tool to fetch a single guest's details or delete messages/photos, but these are non-critical gaps that can be worked around.
Average 4.3/5 across 20 of 20 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 3 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 112 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, and the description adds that the response includes event, settings, location, and more. This is useful but does not detail return format, pagination, or potential errors, so it adds moderate context beyond annotations.
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, well-structured sentence, leading with the core purpose and then providing the endpoint and content highlights. Every word is informative, with no waste or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it names the tool's action, resource, and likely return contents. It does not explain error handling or full response structure, but for this scope, it is nearly complete.
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 single parameter event_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its source. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a single Evite event detail, using the specific verb 'Get' and naming the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evite_list_events by specifying 'single' event, and includes the API endpoint for additional clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for fetching one event by ID, and the parameter description mentions the ID comes from evite_list_events, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds 'resolved auth mode' as a specific detail, but it does not disclose what 'status' encompasses, whether it makes network calls, how auth mode is resolved, or what the output format looks like. No contradiction with annotations.
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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters, read-only), but without an output schema, the description could be more complete. It leaves ambiguity about what 'status' includes and what possible 'resolved auth mode' values might be. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to select the tool for a healthcheck purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description confirms that the tool requires no input, which is consistent with an empty schema. It adds no parameter-level details because there are none to add.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('evite-mcp status and the resolved auth mode'). It unambiguously identifies this as a healthcheck/diagnostic tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage events, guests, and messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for checking status and auth mode, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools. It lacks guidance on typical use cases like pre-flight checks or troubleshooting, and does not mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already known. The description adds behavioral context by noting the return includes 'events plus a totals breakdown' and that filterBy=others returns events where the user is a guest. No contradiction with annotations.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.
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 read-only list operation with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, return summary, and one key filter behavior. It could mention pagination defaults, but the schema already documents those. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well described. The description repeats the filterBy=others semantics already present in the schema, adding little beyond what structured data provides.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'Evite events' and includes the REST endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing events, not guests, templates, or a single event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a hint about the filterBy=others parameter but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like evite_get_event. Usage context is implied by the tool name and the parameter description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds the endpoint and the fields returned, which is useful context but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or error conditions. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, endpoint, and representative output fields. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core function and return content. It lacks mention of pagination or result limits, but these are not critical for a basic list operation, and the readOnlyHint plus clear purpose make it sufficiently complete.
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 input schema has 100% coverage, with the parameter event_id fully described and even noting its provenance from evite_list_events. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists guests for an Evite event, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('guests for an Evite event'). It also enumerates returned details (name, RSVP response, head counts, delivery status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like evite_list_events (lists events) and evite_rsvp_summary (likely summarizes RSVPs).
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?
The description implies when to use: when you need guest details for a specific event. It also notes the event_id comes from evite_list_events, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as evite_rsvp_summary or evite_get_event, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the dry-run preview and confirm gate, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, this information is almost entirely duplicated from the schema's confirm parameter description, so the added value is minimal. It adds a small clarification that nothing is sent without confirm, which is useful.
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 sentences, first states purpose, second states the critical behavioral gate. Very concise and front-loaded; no wasted words.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and the most subtle usage pattern (confirm gating). It doesn't describe return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the schema documents parameters well. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, it is reasonably complete, though it could mention what a successful RSVP does (e.g., updates guest status).
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 coverage is 100%, with all seven parameters described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb 'RSVP' and a resource 'a guest on an Evite event'. It distinguishes from siblings like evite_rsvp_summary by focusing on the action of responding rather than summarizing. The title is consistent and the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The confirm-gated behavior is explicitly described: without confirm:true, it returns a dry-run preview and sends nothing. This tells the agent when it is safe to invoke without side effects. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and names make the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context that the summary is 'Derived from the event guests endpoint' and includes head counts, but it does not disclose potential caveats such as pagination, data freshness, or error behavior. This is adequate but not richly transparent.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and adding only the key detail about what the summary includes. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential output content (RSVP counts and head counts) and data source. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on the exact return structure would improve completeness, but the current level is sufficient for correct tool selection and basic invocation.
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 coverage is 100%: the event_id parameter is already described as 'Evite event id (event_id from evite_list_events).' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get the RSVP summary for an Evite event') and explicitly enumerates the summary dimensions (yes/no/maybe/noReply plus adult/kid head counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like evite_list_guests (raw list) and evite_rsvp (submitting a response).
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need aggregate RSVP counts rather than the full guest list or individual guest details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the endpoint and resource but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or error conditions. With annotations providing the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.
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, information-dense sentence that specifies the action, resource, and endpoint. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one well-documented parameter, readOnly annotation), the description suffices for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the tool's name and clear 'List' purpose.
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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (event_id) with a cross-reference to evite_list_events, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantics.
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?
The description uses the verb 'List' with a clear resource ('messages on an Evite event's Messages tab') and includes the API endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like evite_send_message and evite_get_event.
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?
The description clearly indicates a read/list operation, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. However, the context implies that this is for retrieving messages, not sending them, and the presence of sibling tools makes this distinction adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint:false, signaling a write operation. The description adds valuable transparency by explaining the confirm-gated dry-run behavior, which is not apparent from annotations. It does not cover all nuances (e.g., reversibility, permissions), but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the confirm-gating mechanism. No filler, every sentence earns its place.
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 relatively simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical confirm-gated behavior and draft-only scope. It does not specify the return value on success or error handling, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the clear schema.
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 100%, with each parameter already documented (event_id, guest_id, confirm) including the confirm gating. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('draft guest from an Evite event'), distinguishing it from siblings like evite_update_guest and evite_add_guest. The scope restriction to 'draft (un-sent)' guests makes it unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear usage context: it is for removing draft guests and requires confirm:true to actually execute; otherwise it's a dry-run. It does not explicitly mention alternatives for non-draft guests, but the draft-only scope implies the use case. No misleading guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly discloses the dry-run behavior: 'without confirm:true this returns a dry-run preview and changes nothing.' This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation by explaining how to safely invoke the tool and what happens without confirmation. It also notes the 'un-sent' constraint. It does not mention other side effects or failure modes, but the confirm-gating is the key behavioral trait.
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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the purpose and immediately explains the critical confirm-gating behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description covers the essential context: that the tool edits drafts, which fields are editable, and the confirm-gating mechanism. Since there is no output schema, it does not need to describe return values. It does not mention error conditions or how to obtain IDs, but those are already provided in the schema descriptions, making the overall context reasonably complete.
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 100%, so the input schema already provides detailed meanings for all parameters. The description's mention of 'name/email/phone' aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic information beyond what is already documented. It also hints at the 'confirm' parameter's role, but that is already fully explained in the schema, so the description adds marginal value.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Edit a draft (un-sent) guest's name/email/phone on an Evite event.' It uses a specific verb ('Edit'), identifies the resource ('draft guest'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like evite_add_guest and evite_remove_guest by limiting scope to draft/un-sent guests.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('draft (un-sent) guest') and specifies the confirm-gating behavior, implying that confirm:true is required to actually commit changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-draft guests or state exclusions beyond the 'draft' qualifier, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the burden and delivers: no emails sent until evite_send, confirm-gated dry-run, and guests only persist on finalized events. These are beyond what annotations state, with no contradiction.
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?
Three concise sentences, each carrying distinct critical information: purpose, side-effect, and persistence caveat. Efficiently front-loaded with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Without an output schema, the description explains the dry-run preview and confirm-gating, but does not specify what a successful confirmed response contains. Still, it covers the most crucial operational context: draft status, email absence, and persistence limitations.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The tool description mostly restates the confirm gating already present in the schema, adding little new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Add guests to an event's draft (un-sent) guest list' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like evite_remove_guest and evite_update_guest. It also adds 'Nothing is emailed until you evite_send', reinforcing the tool's scope.
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?
Provides clear context: use for draft un-sent guest lists, confirm-gated with dry-run preview, and a persistence caveat telling when guests actually persist. It does not explicitly name alternatives like evite_update_guest, but the draft/sent distinction makes the intended usage apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly warns 'This really emails every guest in those segments' and explains the dry-run vs. actual send behavior with confirm:true. This is strong disclosure beyond structured fields.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences; first sentence states the action, second warns of real-world effect, third explains the confirm mechanism. No redundant words.
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?
The tool has no output schema, but the description explains the dry-run preview and the actual send behavior. It doesn't describe the preview's contents or explicitly differentiate from similar messaging siblings, but it covers the core operational requirements.
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?
All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides for groups and confirm; it emphasizes the same confirm gating already in the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Broadcast') plus resource ('message to whole RSVP segments of an Evite event') and scope ('whole segments'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like evite_send_message which likely target individuals. It is precise and immediately understandable.
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?
It provides clear context: use for whole-segment broadcasts, not individual messaging, and explains the confirm gate as a prerequisite for actual sending. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint false, the description discloses that without confirm:true the tool returns a dry-run preview and sends nothing, and critically notes that the API may return a 500 despite successful creation. This is valuable behavioral context that the annotations don't provide.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds essential information: required fields, confirm gating, and error handling. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The description covers the draft behavior, confirm gate, and the unusual 500 error handling, which is critical for agents. However, it does not specify the return payload for a successful create or describe what the dry-run preview includes, leaving some ambiguity given there's no output schema.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including confirm, required fields, and datetime formats. The description restates required params and confirm-gating but adds no new information beyond what the schema already describes, so it meets the baseline.
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?
Description opens with 'Create an Evite event (as a draft)' – a specific verb and resource, immediately clarifying the tool's role. The 'as a draft' qualification distinguishes it from sending or updating events, so the purpose is clear and differentiated.
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?
The description explains the confirm-gated workflow (dry-run vs. actual creation) and instructs users not to retry on the 500 error but instead re-list drafts. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'send' or 'update_event' for when to use them, so it's clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses crucial behavioral details beyond the annotations: confirm-gating, dry-run preview behavior, and that no event is created without confirm:true. It also states the return value (new draft event id). This provides the agent with a clear safety model, especially given the annotation only says readOnlyHint:false.
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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add the confirm-gating caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, the return value, and the critical confirm behavior. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand the dry-run flow.
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 input schema already documents both parameters, including a description for confirm that matches the tool description ('Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview'). The description reinforces the confirm behavior but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description begins with a specific verb 'Duplicate' and clearly identifies the resource ('an Evite event') and the result ('a fresh draft'). It also explicitly names the action ('Duplicate event') and notes the return value (new draft event id), distinguishing it from create/update tools.
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?
The description clearly indicates when to use this tool: when duplicating an existing Evite event. It also provides important guidance on the confirm parameter, explaining that without confirm:true the tool only returns a dry-run preview. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like evite_create_event or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full marks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation by warning 'THIS EMAILS GUESTS' and explaining that without confirm:true it returns a dry-run preview and sends nothing. This is crucial behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool and prevents accidental sends.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and the critical safety warning. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the action, safety gate, and dry-run behavior. It leaves no important gaps for an agent to misinterpret.
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 100% and already documents both parameters, including the confirm gate. The description adds the term 'dry-run' but essentially mirrors the schema, providing no significant extra meaning beyond what structured data already offers.
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?
The description clearly states the tool sends the invitation to 'ready-to-send (draft) guests' of an event, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evite_send_message or evite_broadcast by focusing on the main invite and the 'Send now' action.
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?
The description provides clear context by specifying the target guests and the send action, and it explains the confirm-gating behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: the confirm-gated dry-run preview, the requirement for a valid guest_id, and the fact that it truly performs the upload. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation and adds significant operational context.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds essential usage constraints. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, the prerequisite, and the confirm-gating behavior. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including details on path, confirm, event_id, guest_id, and mimetype. The description adds little beyond repeating the confirm behavior and guest_id source, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Upload a local image to an Evite event's shared photo gallery') and emphasizes the real effect ('This really adds the photo to the event album'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the unique resource (photo gallery) and action (upload).
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?
It provides a clear prerequisite ('Needs your guest_id on the event') and explains the confirm-gating mechanism ('without confirm:true this returns a dry-run preview and uploads nothing'). While it doesn't name explicit alternatives, none exist among siblings; the usage context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses critical behaviors beyond annotations: 'DESTRUCTIVE,' potential guest notification, dry-run behavior, and reversibility. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects. The readOnlyHint=false annotation is consistent with the destructive warning; no contradiction.
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?
Three compact sentences front-loaded with the action, followed by the essential safety caveats. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description covers the destructive nature, confirm-gated workflow, and reversibility, which are the key contextual concerns for a cancel operation. No output schema exists, so return details are not described, but the dry-run preview is mentioned. A slightly more detailed preview description could push this to 5, but it is sufficiently complete for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, and the description adds further meaning by explaining the confirm parameter's role in dry-run vs. actual cancellation. The event_id parameter is already described in the schema with its source (evite_list_events), so the description adds value beyond the schema.
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?
The description opens with a specific action, 'Cancel an Evite event,' and clarifies 'also used to delete a draft.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like evite_list_events, evite_get_event, and evite_create_event, and explicitly names evite_reinstate_event as the reversal tool, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Clear usage guidance is provided: the tool is confirm-gated ('without confirm:true this returns a dry-run preview and cancels nothing') and reversible via evite_reinstate_event. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses critical behavioral traits: confirm-gated dry-run preview, no action without confirm, and partial update semantics (only passed fields change). This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by detailing the mutation's safety mechanism and side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and immediately followed by the most important caveat. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details. This is exemplary conciseness.
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?
Given 100% schema coverage, the description focuses on the only missing context: the confirm-gating behavior and partial update semantics. It mentions the dry-run preview output, which partially covers the lack of an output schema. It does not describe the exact preview format, but that is a minor gap for an edit tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds collective parameter semantics: 'only the fields you pass change' clarifies that all parameters are optional for partial updates. It also reinforces the confirm parameter's purpose, which is already in schema but is critical enough to warrant emphasis.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing Evite event'. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like evite_create_event and evite_cancel_event by specifying 'existing event' and noting that only passed fields change. This is unambiguous and precisely scoped.
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?
The description implies usage for modifying an existing event and the confirm-gated workflow is clearly explained. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the 'existing event' phrasing make the intended context obvious. The confirm:true requirement is a crucial usage guideline that is clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds value by disclosing the return format ('slug (= template_name) and a readable display name') and the meaning of the category parameter. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides enough behavioral context for a simple read-only tool.
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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose, then providing parameter details and return info in a structured way. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states what the tool returns, making it complete for a simple list operation. It also situates the tool within the broader workflow by referencing evite_create_event, covering all necessary context for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters already described, but the description adds critical meaning by explaining that the return slug serves as the template_name required by evite_create_event. It also elaborates on the category examples beyond the schema, enhancing agent understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List invitation templates from a gallery category' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking to evite_create_event, making its unique purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit usage guidance: 'use this to find the template_name that evite_create_event requires', which tells exactly when to use this tool. It also provides concrete category examples and explains the free_only option, giving the agent clear context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the dry-run preview behavior and that confirm:true is required to actually change anything. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the structured data.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and inverse relation, followed by the key behavioral gate. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the prerequisite (previously-cancelled event), and the critical confirm-gate behavior. It is complete for effective selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, so the description adds marginal value. However, it reinforces the meaning of confirm by explaining the dry-run behavior, which goes slightly beyond the schema description.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Reinstate' with a clear resource 'previously-cancelled Evite event' and explicitly positions it as the inverse of evite_cancel_event, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.
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?
The description provides clear usage context: it is for reinstating cancelled events and includes the critical confirm-gated behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the inverse-of relation and confirm-gate instructions give sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it actually notifies the guest, is sent as the host, uses Firebase rather than REST, and is confirm-gated with a dry-run preview. This is rich, non-redundant context.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then a constraint, then the confirm behavior. No filler; every sentence provides necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a mutation tool: it explains the purpose, the sender/authorization constraint, the delivery mechanism, and the confirmation requirement. Given the rich schema and annotations, nothing important is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the confirm parameter by explaining that without confirm:true, the tool returns a dry-run preview and sends nothing—this goes beyond the schema's simple 'Must be true to proceed.'
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?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Send a private message to one Evite event guest.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like evite_broadcast (multiple guests) and evite_list_messages (reading messages) by emphasizing 'one guest' and 'private message.'
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?
Provides clear contextual guidance: only the host can use it, and confirm=true is required. This effectively tells the agent when the tool is applicable and what prerequisite must be met, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![evite-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/evite-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/evite-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![evite-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/evite-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/evite-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/chrischall/evite-mcp'

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