Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_upload_photo

Upload a local image file to an Evite event's shared photo gallery. Provide your event ID and guest ID to confirm and add the photo to the event album.

Instructions

Upload a local image to an Evite event's shared photo gallery. This really adds the photo to the event album. Needs your guest_id on the event (from evite_list_guests). 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
pathYesPath to the local image file to upload (a leading ~ is expanded). JPEG/PNG/GIF/WebP/HEIC, max 20 MB.
event_idYesEvite event id (event_id from evite_list_events).
guest_idYesYour guest id on the event (guestId from evite_list_guests — your own row, guestType host/cohost/guest).
mimetypeNoOverride the image mimetype (otherwise inferred from the file). Must match the file contents.
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. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / mimetype / description
      Previous value: -"Override the image mimetype (otherwise inferred from the file extension)."New value: +"Override the image mimetype (otherwise inferred from the file). Must match the file contents."
    • addedInput schema / properties / mimetype / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "image/jpeg",
+  "image/png",
+  "image/gif",
+  "image/webp",
+  "image/heic",
+  "image/heif"
+]
  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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, while the description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: the photo is actually committed to the album, user confirmation is required first, and the two-step confirmToken fallback is explained for clients without elicitation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs to avoid surprising the user or inventing a token.

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?

The first sentence is a strong, front-loaded purpose statement, and the prerequisite and confirmation sentences are informative. However, the second sentence ('This really adds the photo to the event album.') is redundant with the first and adds informal filler, so the description is good but not maximally efficient.

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?

The definition covers the essential invocation context: which IDs are needed, where to get them, accepted file types and sizes, and exactly how the confirmation and confirmToken flow works in both client modes. It does not describe the final success response after the confirmToken call, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so it stops just short of complete.

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 input schema already documents path formats and limits, event_id and guest_id provenance, mimetype override rules, and the confirmToken restrictions. The description reinforces guest_id provenance and the token flow but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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, and destination: 'Upload a local image to an Evite event's shared photo gallery.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the messaging, RSVP, and event-management siblings, and the annotation title reinforces the same action. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 names the required prerequisite (guest_id from evite_list_guests) and spells out the confirmation workflow, giving an agent clear context for when and how to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but no sibling tool overlaps with photo upload, so this is only a minor gap.

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