Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

remove_event_invitation

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a single guest's or group's invitation to an event, discarding their RSVP for that event. Other invitations stay; confirmation required.

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

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, and the description goes further by naming the concrete data loss (RSVP response and meal choice discarded, not restored on re-invite) and the blast radius ('Other events' invitations are preserved'). It also discloses the two-phase confirmation protocol and the confirmToken contract, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the parameter rule before the confirmation mechanics. Slightly long, and the confirmToken explanation partly duplicates the schema field description, but nothing is 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?

For a destructive 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation scope, irreversibility, idempotence, cross-event safety, and the full two-phase return/confirmation flow an agent must handle. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint the schema does not encode: exactly one of guest_group_id/guest_id must be supplied, with the differing blast radius for each. The confirmToken semantics largely restate the schema's own lengthy description, hence not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove an event invitation') and immediately scopes it to 'a single guest or guest group', distinguishing it from the sibling invite_guest_to_event. An agent knows exactly what entity is mutated.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: 'Pass exactly one of guest_group_id (removes for all guests in the group) or guest_id (removes for just that guest).' It also spells out the confirmation sequencing (prompt first, or preview+confirmToken fallback), leaving no decision to inference.

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