Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_send_message

Destructive

Message one event guest privately as the host. Requires event and guest IDs and confirms before sending, preventing accidental notifications.

Instructions

Send a private message to one Evite event guest. This really notifies the guest. Sent as the event host (Evite delivers per-guest chat over Firebase, not REST), so only a host can use it. 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
messageYesMessage text to send to the guest.
event_idYesEvite event id (event_id from evite_list_events).
guest_idYesGuest id to message (guestId from evite_list_guests).
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds significant behavioral detail: it confirms real delivery, restricts to host role, and details the two confirmation modes (client prompt vs. two-step token fallback). This exceeds annotation coverage and gives the agent actionable expectations about side effects and user interaction.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and key constraints (host-only, confirmation requirement) are presented early. The two-step fallback is explained compactly without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with a confirmation mechanism, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: who can use it, what happens on first call, how to proceed with confirmToken, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference. No output schema exists, but the description mentions the phase-1 response contents (preview and token), sufficient for an agent to handle the flow 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including an extensive explanation of confirmToken. The tool description reiterates the confirmation flow but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a private message to one Evite event guest.' It also clarifies scope ('one guest', 'private') and emphasizes actual notification ('really notifies'), distinguishing it from draft-only operations. Sibling tools like evite_broadcast are implicitly differentiated by the singular/private focus.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for private messaging to a single guest and requires host privileges. It explains the confirmation flow, which is essential for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., 'use evite_broadcast for multiple guests'), leaving some inference needed.

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