Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_rsvp

Destructive

Submit an RSVP for a guest on an Evite event by specifying response, adult and kid counts, and an optional note, after user confirmation.

Instructions

RSVP for a guest on an Evite event. 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
noteNoOptional note/comment to leave with the RSVP.
event_idYesEvite event id (event_id from evite_list_events).
guest_idYesGuest id to RSVP for (guestId from evite_list_guests).
responseYesRSVP response.
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.
number_of_kidsYesNumber of kids attending.
number_of_adultsYesNumber of adults attending.

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?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly discloses the two-phase confirmation behavior: it will either prompt the user or return a preview plus confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds. This is important safety-relevant operational context that the annotations and schema do not fully convey.

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 tight sentences front-load the primary action and pack the confirmation behavior into the second sentence without redundancy. The flow explanation is dense but necessary and well-ordered, with every sentence earning 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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description explains the confirmation/token fallback and references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. It does not describe what a successful repeat call returns or the post-confirmation result, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call 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 input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, including the special confirmToken behavior and provenance of event_id/guest_id. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the confirmation-flow context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 ('RSVP for a guest on an Evite event') and makes the target clear: a guest on an event. It also differentiates from the sibling evite_rsvp_summary by describing the mutating RSVP action rather than a read/summary operation.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for RSVPing a guest to an event, and the schema ties event_id and guest_id to evite_list_events/evite_list_guests. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear enough to select it over related siblings.

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