Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_rsvp_summary

Read-only

Summarize RSVP responses for an Evite event with yes, no, maybe, and no reply counts, plus adult and kid head counts.

Instructions

Get the RSVP summary for an Evite event (yes/no/maybe/noReply plus adult/kid head counts). Derived from the event guests endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; "full" returns Evite's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Evite fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.
event_idYesEvite event id (event_id from evite_list_events).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; \"full\" returns Evite's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Evite fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned fields and the fact that it is a derived/aggregated view rather than raw guest records, but says nothing about freshness, staleness of the aggregate, permissions, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and returned content front-loaded. The trailing provenance sentence is short and genuinely informative about data origin.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (yes/no/maybe/noReply plus adult/kid counts), which is enough for a read-only aggregate tool. Minor gaps remain around whether derived counts can lag behind guest updates, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 view enum is documented at length in the schema itself, including the compact/full tradeoff. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the RSVP summary for an Evite event') and even enumerates the returned buckets, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling evite_rsvp or evite_list_guests, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite evite_rsvp and evite_list_guests being obvious candidates an agent might confuse it with. The note that it is 'derived from the event guests endpoint' hints at its relationship to the guest data but stops short of routing advice.

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