Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_update_guest

Destructive

Edit a draft guest's name, email, or phone on an Evite event, with confirmation before saving changes.

Instructions

Edit a draft (un-sent) guest's name/email/phone 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
nameYesNew guest name.
emailYesNew guest email address.
phoneNoNew guest phone (optional; omitted keeps the guest's current phone and invite method).
event_idYesEvite event id (event_id from evite_list_events).
guest_idYesDraft guest id to edit (guest_id from the guest list).
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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / phone / description
      Previous value: -"New guest phone (optional)."New value: +"New guest phone (optional; omitted keeps the guest's current phone and invite method)."
  2. 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"
+}
  3. 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"
  4. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the full confirmation protocol, including that the first call may return only a preview plus confirmToken and that the token must never be invented or reused. It does not explain why the operation is destructive (e.g., whether the guest is re-notified), which leaves one behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the confirmation caveat. The second sentence is long but every clause (preview, token, repeat call, MCP_CONFIRM_MODE pointer) carries necessary operational detail.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the unusual two-phase confirmation contract well enough for correct invocation. It omits what a successful edit returns or side effects on the guest's invite status, which would round out the picture.

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%, so name, email, phone, event_id, guest_id and confirmToken are already documented in the schema. The description confirms which fields are editable but adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond the schema text; the baseline of 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 (edit), resource (guest), the editable fields (name/email/phone), and a scope constraint (draft/un-sent only), which implicitly separates it from evite_add_guest and evite_remove_guest. It stops short of naming any sibling tool outright, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 'draft (un-sent)' qualifier tells the agent when this tool applies and implicitly excludes already-sent guests, and the confirmation protocol explains the call sequence. No alternative tool is named for the sent-guest case, so the routing guidance is contextual 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