Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
signupgenius-mcp

signupgenius-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

signupgenius_add_group_member

Destructive

Add a person to a SignUpGenius group by email address to include them in future sign-up invitations. Preview and confirm before sending to prevent unwanted invites.

Instructions

Add a person to one of your SignUpGenius groups by email address (first/last name optional). WRITES DATA: the person may start receiving the group's sign-up invitations, so it asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call sends nothing and returns the preview (group, email, name) and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with the same arguments plus that token adds them — show the preview to the user and get their approval first (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupIdYes
lastnameNo
firstnameNo
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.
emailaddressYesEmail of the member to add to the group.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.11
    • 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 changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / emailaddress / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
  4. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag the operation as a destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds substantial non-structured context: the real-world consequence (the person may start receiving invitations), the two-phase confirmation protocol, the phase-1 no-op preview + confirmToken, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE fallback. This is exactly the behavioral value a description should add beyond annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded before the confirmation detail, and the content largely earns its place. The second sentence is a long multi-clause run-on and the '(MCP_CONFIRM_MODE)' tag is terse, costing a point on structure despite overall efficiency.

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 non-idempotent write tool with 5 params, no output schema, and a two-step confirmation protocol, the description covers the critical path: side effects, the preview return shape, and the fallback token flow. An agent has enough to call it correctly, and the phase-1 return is described in lieu of an output schema.

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 coverage is 40% (<50%), so the description carries weight: it establishes email as the required key and first/last as optional, and explains the confirmToken contract (same arguments, only after approval). Only groupId is left semantically undocumented, which is the sole gap.

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 ('Add a person to ... groups') plus the keying mechanism (by email address, first/last optional). This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like signupgenius_get_group_member and signupgenius_list_group_members without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context (adding a member, first/last optional) and an explicit pre-condition flow for confirmation. It does not name exclusions or route to sibling alternatives (e.g. removing releasing a slot), so it stops short of a 5, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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