Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_broadcast

Destructive

Send one message to selected RSVP segments of an Evite event, such as all guests who replied yes, no, or maybe. Confirms first; check sent messages if a call times out.

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. If a call fails or times out it may still have gone out — check evite_list_messages before calling again. 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the behavioral detail that matters most: it genuinely emails all guests, a failed/timed-out call may still have sent, and a user confirmation (elicitation or preview+confirmToken round-trip) is required before sending. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the headline action is front-loaded before the side-effect warning and the confirmation mechanics. The confirmation sentence is dense but each clause (elicitation path, fallback path, token rule) carries distinct 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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema send tool, the description covers the action, side effects, failure/retry semantics, and the required confirmation protocol. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely without additional context.

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 groups, message, event_id, and confirmToken are already documented in the schema (including the strict 'never on the first call, never reused' rule). The description adds the overall preview/confirmToken flow but no parameter-level detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (broadcast) and resource (a message to RSVP segments of an Evite event), plus the bulk scope ('at once') that separates it from per-guest siblings like evite_send_message. An agent can identify the operation and its blast radius 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear usage context: it emails every guest in the selected segments, it routes the agent to evite_list_messages after a failure/timeout before retrying, and it documents the confirmation gate and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE fallback. It does not explicitly contrast with evite_send_message/evite_send for single-recipient sends, but the segment-scoped framing makes the boundary implicit.

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