Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_add_guest

Add guests to an Evite event draft guest list; confirmation is required, and no emails are sent until the event is sent.

Instructions

Add guests to an event's draft (un-sent) guest list. Nothing is emailed until you evite_send. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). NB: guests only persist on a finalized (sent/sending) event, not a bare new draft.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guestsYesGuests to add to the draft (un-sent) list.
event_idYesEvite event id (event_id from evite_list_events).
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations (which only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false): the confirmation gate, the confirmToken two-step fallback with reuse prohibition, and the critical caveat that guests only persist on a finalized event, not a bare draft. This is high-value disclosure an agent could not derive from schemas or annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and the no-email guarantee, then progressively discloses the confirmation protocol and persistence caveat. Dense but every clause earns its place; the 'NB' and 'MCP_CONFIRM_MODE' references are slightly jargon-heavy.

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?

Covers action, side effects, confirmation protocol, token lifecycle, and a persistence footgun – everything needed to call this mutation safely. No output schema exists, but the important response semantics (preview/confirmToken in phase 1) are described inline.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics for confirmToken (fallback-only, never invented, never on first call, ignored under elicitation) that the schema description only partially covers. The 'guests' semantics ('draft/un-sent list') are also reinforced.

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?

Specific verb (add) + resource (guests) + scope (a draft, un-sent guest list) that clearly distinguishes it from evite_update_guest, evite_remove_guest, and evite_send. An agent can route correctly without opening 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when nothing is emailed ('until you evite_send') and gives the full confirmation flow, including the two-phase fallback when elicitation is unsupported. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools