Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_guests

Read-only

Lists guest groups with stats, names, tier, and RSVP state; use view:full for addresses, emails, and phone numbers.

Instructions

List all guest groups (households) with stats (total, invited, missing addresses). The default view carries names, ids, tier, invited/RSVP state and per-event invitations but no contact details; pass view:"full" for addresses, emails and phone numbers.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact keeps ids, names, tier, invited/RSVP state, per-event invitations and whether an address is on file; it leaves out street addresses, emails and phone numbers. Ask for "full" only when you need contact details.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.4
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact keeps ids, names, tier, invited/RSVP state, per-event invitations and whether an address is on file; it leaves out street addresses, emails and phone numbers. Ask for \"full\" only when you need contact details.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive behavioral context by enumerating exactly which fields the default view includes and which it omits (contact details), and what full unlocks. It stops short of covering pagination, ordering, or whether the list includes uninvited/removed guests.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the field-availability caveat. Two sentences, no filler, though the second sentence partially re-explains the enum already spelled out in the schema. Slightly tight for the payload it carries.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-shape burden and largely does, enumerating fields per view. Missing only operational details (pagination, sort order, inclusion of uninvited guests) that an agent might want before calling a household listing.

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% and the view enum is already fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description's restatement of compact-vs-full adds a use-case framing but no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'List all guest groups (households)' — and clarifies both the grouping semantics and the stats returned (total, invited, missing addresses). 'All' implicitly scopes it against list_unseated_guests, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

The description gives explicit conditional guidance for the view mode ('pass view:"full" for addresses, emails and phone numbers', default view has no contact details), which is genuinely actionable. However it says nothing about when to choose this tool over the many sibling guest/card-project listing tools (list_unseated_guests, get_card_project_guests), leaving tool-level selection implied.

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