Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_create_event

Create an Evite event draft by providing title, start time, and template. Confirms with you first, then verifies creation even if the API errors.

Instructions

Create an Evite event (as a draft). Requires title, start_datetime, and template_name. 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). Evite answers a create with a 500 even when the draft IS created; this tool handles that by re-listing your drafts, and returns created:true with the eventId, or created:"unknown" when it cannot confirm — never call it again for the same event; check the drafts instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesEvent title.
messageNoEvent message / description.
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.
end_datetimeNoEnd datetime (ISO 8601, event-local).
template_nameYesInvitation template name (required by the create API; e.g. a gallery design id).
start_datetimeYesStart datetime (ISO 8601, event-local). Required.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the mandatory confirmation gate, the elicitation vs. confirmToken fallback, and the upstream 500-on-success quirk with its re-list-and-report workaround. This is exactly the behavioral context structured fields cannot carry.

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 purpose and required fields, then the confirmation protocol, then the failure handling. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on em-dash clauses in the middle make it denser than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation that can fail ambiguously, the description supplies the return contract itself (created:true with eventId, or created:"unknown"), which is the single most important thing an agent needs to avoid duplicate drafts. Nothing material is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces the three required fields and, more importantly, explains confirmToken's role in the phase-1/phase-2 flow and when it must never be sent. That is meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter text.

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 and resource ('Create an Evite event') plus a scope qualifier ('as a draft') that separates it from evite_duplicate_event and evite_update_event. An agent can identify the operation and its intended state 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 operating context: it asks for user confirmation first, describes both confirmation paths, and explicitly rules out repeat calls for the same event ('never call it again... check the drafts instead'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool (evite_list_events) as the alternative, so the routing 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