Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

remove_event_invitation

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an event invitation for a guest or guest group, discarding their RSVP for that event. Specify either guest_id or guest_group_id; other events are unaffected.

Instructions

Remove an event invitation for a single guest or guest group. Pass exactly one of guest_group_id (removes for all guests in the group) or guest_id (removes for just that guest). Removing an invitation discards the guest’s recorded RSVP for this event (response, meal choice); re-inviting does not restore it. Other events’ invitations are preserved. Idempotent. 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
event_idYesEvent entity ID from list_events (event_entity_id)
guest_idNoSingle guest ID — removes for just that guest
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.
guest_group_idNoGuest group ID — removes for every guest in the group

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.4
    • 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. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations by disclosing that removal discards the guest's RSVP details, that re-inviting does not restore them, that other events are unaffected, and by detailing the two-step confirmation flow with a confirmToken. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 earns its place: purpose, scope selection, consequences, idempotence, and confirmation protocol. It is front-loaded with the core operation and parameter rule before explaining caveats and fallback behavior, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, idempotence, and non-trivial confirmation flow, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass, what will be lost, what is preserved, that it is idempotent, and exactly how to handle the two-step confirmation fallback. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description specifies the preview/confirmToken contract.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by imposing the mutually exclusive 'exactly one of guest_group_id or guest_id' rule and explaining the confirmToken's role in the confirmation fallback, which is valuable beyond the schema text.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an event invitation for a single guest or guest group.' It clearly states the operation's target and scope, and the parameter-level conditional ('Pass exactly one of guest_group_id or guest_id') makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like invite_guest_to_event or remove_guest.

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 description gives explicit usage instructions: pass exactly one of guest_group_id or guest_id depending on target scope, and explains effects like 'Other events' invitations are preserved.' It does not name sibling alternatives for when not to use this tool, but the usage context is otherwise clear and unambiguous.

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