Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

signupgenius-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

signupgenius_release_slot

Destructive

Withdraw your sign-up from a SignUpGenius slot. Confirms removal with a preview before releasing the spot.

Instructions

Withdraw (give up) a slot the user previously signed up for. WRITES DATA — this removes a real sign-up, so it asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call removes nothing and returns the preview (sheet, slot, whose entry) and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with the same arguments plus that token withdraws — show the preview to the user and get their approval first (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesSign-up URL or slug.
memberIdNoOptional. The signed-in member id is resolved automatically; supplying a DIFFERENT one is rejected, because this tool only withdraws the current user's own sign-up.
slotitemidYesThe slot the entry sits in (`slotitemid` from the same signupgenius_list_slots row). Used to verify afterwards that the entry actually disappeared.
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.
itemMemberIdYesThe sign-up entry to withdraw — `participants[].item_member_id` from signupgenius_list_slots. This is the wizard's `imid`.

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 withdraw.",
-  "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. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it warns that the call "removes a real sign-up," requires user confirmation, and explains that in fallback mode the first call returns a preview plus confirmToken and only the repeated call actually withdraws. This is strong disclosure of non-obvious behavior.

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 destructive warning is front-loaded and every sentence carries necessary information about confirmation behavior. The second sentence is dense and somewhat run-on, but the complexity is justified by the two-step confirmation protocol it must explain.

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 destructive write operation with no output schema, this description covers the essential context: what the tool does, that it mutates data, when confirmation is required, how the fallback token flow works, and the ownership restriction. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 the input schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, including the security restriction on memberId and the confirmToken protocol. The description adds flow context but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 and resource: "Withdraw (give up) a slot the user previously signed up for." It clearly identifies the action and scope, and is easily distinguished from siblings like signupgenius_claim_slot or signupgenius_rsvp.

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 clearly says this is for a slot the user already signed up for and explicitly scopes it to the current user's own sign-up: "only withdraws the current user's own sign-up." It also gives precise confirmation guidance for both MCP confirmation-capable clients and the fallback flow, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead.

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