Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_send

Destructive

Send invitations to an event's ready-to-send draft guests; requires confirmation before emails go out.

Instructions

Send the invitation to the ready-to-send (draft) guests of an event ("Send now"). THIS EMAILS GUESTS. If a call fails or times out it may still have sent — check evite_list_guests (delivery status) 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
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.

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing that real guests are emailed (irreversible external effect), that a timeout may still have sent the invitation (non-idempotency), and that a confirmation gate applies. It does not cover rate limits or per-invitee partial-failure behavior, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 the action and the caps-lock warning, and every clause carries information; nothing is filler. It is dense to the point of being hard to scan, with nested parentheticals in the confirmation sentence, so it falls short of a model two-sentence structure.

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, one-required-param tool, the description covers the safety gate, the retry hazard, the recovery tool, and the confirmation-token protocol. An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly and to avoid double-sending.

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, and the description earns an extra point by framing confirmToken as a phase-2-only artifact tied to the preview and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, which is context the schema field alone does not convey. event_id semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Send the invitation to the ready-to-send (draft) guests of an event') and scopes it to draft/ready-to-send guests, which cleanly separates it from siblings like evite_send_message, evite_broadcast and evite_rsvp. An agent can identify the tool 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit pre-call conditions (user confirmation first), an explicit failure path ('If a call fails or times out... check evite_list_guests before calling again'), and names the alternative tool to consult. It also states what the token-based path is for versus clients with elicitation support.

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