Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
signupgenius-mcp

signupgenius-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

signupgenius_release_slot

Destructive

Withdraw your own SignUpGenius sign-up after confirmation, removing the selected slot entry so your spot is released.

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

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the full two-phase confirmation protocol: the client-side prompt when elicitation is supported, the fallback where the first call is a no-op returning a preview plus confirmToken, and the requirement to echo the token with identical arguments. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know before invoking a destructive write.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the destructive warning follows immediately; every clause carries information. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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, no-output-schema mutation with a non-trivial confirmation handshake, the description supplies the missing pieces: the confirm-first requirement, the preview contents, and the token round-trip. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is absent.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what the preview exposes (sheet, slot, whose entry) and the lifecycle rules for confirmToken (never on first call, never invented, never reused, ignored under elicitation), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Withdraw/give up') and resource ('a slot the user previously signed up for'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling signupgenius_claim_slot without opening 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?

The when-to-use is clear (undo a prior sign-up) and it adds a real exclusion: only the current user's own entry can be withdrawn, a different memberId is rejected. It never names an explicit alternative sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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