Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_create_event_contact

Destructive

Add a host or guest contact to an event by name, email, or phone, with a confirmation step before saving.

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

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world mutation; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the confirmation-first flow, the phase-1 preview plus confirmToken, and that only a repeat call with that token proceeds. It still omits side effects (whether the contact is notified, permission requirements, error behavior), so it is not a full 5.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the confirmation mechanics second. The parenthetical about confirmToken/MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 mutating 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the two-phase confirmation return path (preview + confirmToken), which is the most agent-critical behavior. It leaves unaddressed what the tool returns on success and any permission prerequisites, so it is complete enough but not exhaustive.

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%, with firstName, lastName, and phoneNumber undocumented there. The description partially compensates by grouping them as 'name/email/phone' and noting the host/guest role, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states, so it lands at the baseline for partial coverage.

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 states a specific verb (Add) and resource (a contact, host or guest, to an event) plus the identity fields involved, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as vibo_invite_users or vibo_remove_user, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the resource and the role enum, and the reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE hints at environment-dependent behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no stated alternative for adding people to an event (e.g. invite_users vs this contact-add path).

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