Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

signupgenius-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

signupgenius_claim_slot

Claim a specific slot on a SignUpGenius sign-up sheet by providing the slot ID, your name, and email. Get a confirmation preview before submitting, with support for custom fields and quantity.

Instructions

Claim (sign up for) a slot on a slot-based SignUpGenius sheet. WRITES DATA the organizer sees, so it asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call writes nothing and returns the preview (sheet, slot, identity) and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with the same arguments plus that token submits — show the preview to the user and get their approval first (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). For Yes/No/Maybe headcount sheets use signupgenius_rsvp instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesSign-up URL or slug.
emailYes
commentNoOptional comment shown to the organizer.
lastnameYes
quantityNoSpots to take. Default 1.
firstnameYes
slotitemidYesThe slot to claim. Get this from signupgenius_list_slots.
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.
customFieldsNoAnswers to the sheet's required custom questions. Read the required set from signupgenius_get_public_signup.customFields — omitting a required field makes the server reject the claim.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.4
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to actually submit. Omit (or false) to get a dry-run preview of exactly what would be sent, including the identity and the slot.",
-  "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 changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"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. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses that the tool WRITES data visible to the organizer, explains the confirmation prompt behavior (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE), and details the two-phase fallback where the first call writes nothing and returns a preview plus confirmToken, with only a repeat call submitting. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid accidental writes, and it is not derivable from the 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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose and the critical write-warning front-loaded before the fallback mechanics and sibling routing. The confirmation concept is explained somewhat redundantly (prompt mention plus full fallback explanation), but given the real complexity of the two-phase flow, every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, write-safety, confirmation protocol, phase-1 response contents (sheet, slot, identity, confirmToken), and the rsvp alternative. Minor gaps remain—failure modes like already-claimed slots or full sheets are not mentioned—but the critical agent-facing behavior is well covered.

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 67%, and the schema already provides rich descriptions for the most complex parameters: confirmToken's two-step protocol and customFields' requirement to mirror signupgenius_get_public_signup.customFields. The description adds the conceptual flow behind confirmToken but does not systematically compensate for the ~33% of parameters lacking schema descriptions. This is adequate but not exemplary.

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: 'Claim (sign up for) a slot on a slot-based SignUpGenius sheet.' It scopes the tool to slot-based sheets and differentiates it from signupgenius_rsvp for headcount sheets, and by naming the inverse sibling (release_slot exists) the claim semantics are unambiguous. An agent can immediately tell what this does and what it is not.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: the description states when this tool applies (slot-based sheets) and names the exact alternative with its trigger condition ('For Yes/No/Maybe headcount sheets use signupgenius_rsvp instead'). It also reveals that slotitemid is obtained via signupgenius_list_slots in the schema, routing the agent to the prerequisite tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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