Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_create_event_contact

Adds a host or guest to an event with email, name, and phone details, requiring user confirmation to prevent unintended contact creation.

Instructions

Add a contact (host or guest) to an event with their name/email/phone. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleYesThe contact's role in the event.
emailYesContact email (required by Vibo).
eventIdYesEvent id.
lastNameNo
firstNameNo
phoneCodeNoCountry calling code, e.g. "1".
phoneNumberNo
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 changedv2.3.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "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. Addedv1.5.3
  5. Removedv1.5.1
  6. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which barely characterize behavior. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the stateful two-step confirmation mechanism: 'a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds'. It also explicitly says 'Add' which indicates a mutation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the confirmation behavior is explained succinctly in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place and no redundant information is present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, a two-step confirmation flow, no output schema), the description covers the most critical runtime behavior and the confirmToken flow thoroughly. However, it does not clarify the optionality of name/phone fields, and the phrase 'with their name/email/phone' could mislead an agent into thinking name and phone are required when only email is required per the schema. Minor gaps remain, but overall it is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 63%, leaving lastName, firstName, and phoneNumber undocumented in the schema. The tool description adds the semantic grouping 'name/email/phone', which maps to these fields, but does not clarify which are optional or required beyond what the schema already states. The confirmToken parameter is well-described in the schema and reinforced in the description. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Add a contact (host or guest) to an event'. It explains the kind of data involved (name/email/phone). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like vibo_invite_users or vibo_change_user_role, so it misses the highest level of sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides detailed mechanics for the confirmation flow (credential token fallback) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or mention any sibling tool (e.g., when to prefer vibo_invite_users instead). This leaves the agent without routing guidance.

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