Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_broadcast

Destructive

Broadcast a message to entire RSVP segments (yes/no/maybe) for an Evite event, with user confirmation before emails are sent.

Instructions

Broadcast a message to whole RSVP segments of an Evite event at once (e.g. everyone who replied yes/maybe). This really emails every guest in those segments. 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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupsYesRSVP segments to send to, e.g. ['yes','no','maybe'].
messageYesMessage text to broadcast to the selected RSVP segments.
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.
participant_countNoOptional recipient count the web UI sends along (informational).

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the bulk-email side effect ('This really emails every guest') and fully specifies the two-phase confirmation protocol: a client confirmation prompt where supported, otherwise a phase-1 preview returning a confirmToken that must be echoed on a repeat call. This is substantial behavioral context consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the critical side-effect warning and the confirmation protocol. There is no filler; every sentence carries essential operational 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 bulk, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: the real emailing side effect, the confirmation flow, and the preview/confirmToken fallback. Minor gaps remain — no mention of rate limits and the cryptic 'see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE' reference — but an agent has what it needs to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema is already rich — particularly for confirmToken, which documents the two-step token protocol in detail ('never on the first call, never invented, never reused'). The main description adds only the segment example and confirmation-flow context, which is marginal on top of the schema. 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 names a specific verb (broadcast), resource (RSVP segments of an Evite event), and scope (whole segments at once), with a concrete example ('everyone who replied yes/maybe'). The 'whole...at once' phrasing differentiates it from siblings like evite_send_message without needing to open either schema.

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 when to use the tool — reaching entire RSVP segments in a single blast — and the 'whole...at once' wording implicitly contrasts with evite_send_message. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use it (e.g., for a targeted single-guest send), so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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