Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

signupgenius-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

signupgenius_rsvp

Submit your Yes/No/Maybe RSVP to a SignUpGenius sign-up sheet, adding your name and guest counts. Confirms before sending to prevent duplicate responses.

Instructions

RSVP to a SignUpGenius sign-up (the Yes/No/Maybe-style sheets, including invitations from family/friends). 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 sends nothing and returns the preview (sheet, response, head counts, 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). Refuses when the signed-in member already has a response on the sheet (it can only ADD a response, so a second one would double-count) — change an existing answer in the SignUpGenius web UI. Slot-based sign-ups (e.g. "claim the 3pm slot") are NOT handled here — use signupgenius_claim_slot for those.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesSignUpGenius sign-up URL (https://www.signupgenius.com/go/<slug>) or just the slug.
emailYes
adultsNoAdult guest count. Defaults to 1 for yes/maybe, 0 for no.
commentNoOptional comment shown to the sign-up owner.
childrenNoChild guest count. Defaults to 0.
lastnameYes
responseYesRSVP response. Maps to the wizard's Yes / No / Maybe buttons.
firstnameYes
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 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 the sign-up, response, head counts and identity — nothing is sent to the organizer.",
-  "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 changedv2.1.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true to actually submit. Omit (or false) to get a dry-run preview of the sign-up, response, head counts and identity — nothing is sent to the organizer.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"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,}$"
  5. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses far more than the annotations: it states this tool WRITES DATA, explains the confirmation prompt behavior, details the two-step fallback with confirmToken, and specifies that it refuses to add a second response. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, write-safety, confirmation behavior, refusal condition, and sibling routing. It front-loads the core function and then layers the necessary workflow detail without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries a heavy burden and meets it fully. It covers what the tool does, what it writes, when confirmation is needed, what the fallback returns, when it refuses, and when to use a different tool — leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 67%, so the schema carries much of the parameter documentation. The description adds essential semantics for confirmToken by explaining the phase-1 preview, the repeat-call requirement, and the 'never invented, never reused' rule. It also clarifies the high-level flow around response, url, and identity, though firstname/lastname remain minimally documented.

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: 'RSVP to a SignUpGenius sign-up (the Yes/No/Maybe-style sheets...)'. It further distinguishes itself from the slot-based sibling by stating 'Slot-based sign-ups ... are NOT handled here — use signupgenius_claim_slot for those', so an agent can identify the correct tool unambiguously.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the confirmation workflow, the fallback two-step flow, and the refusal case for existing responses with a directive to use the web UI. It also names the alternative tool for slot-based sign-ups, making the decision boundary clear.

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