Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

set_event_guests

DestructiveIdempotent

Bulk assign guest groups to an event by tier, affiliation, or location. Inviting groups runs immediately; uninviting removes their RSVPs and requires confirmation.

Instructions

Set which guest groups are invited to an event (bulk). For each group, invited:true ensures every guest in the group is invited to the event; invited:false removes the invitation — and with it any RSVP the guest recorded for this event (response, meal choice), which cannot be restored. Other events’ invitations are preserved. Idempotent. Use this to assign guests to events in bulk (e.g. by tier/affiliation/location). A call that uninvites anyone 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). A call that only invites runs immediately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesEvent entity ID from list_events (event_entity_id)
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_groupsYesGuest groups to set for this event. Only the listed groups are affected.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial detail beyond those flags: uninviting deletes the guest's RSVP response and meal choice irreversibly, other events' invitations are preserved, and the two-step confirmation flow with confirmToken is explained. This directly tells the agent what gets destroyed and how confirmation behaves.

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: the core action, destructive consequences, idempotence, bulk-use guidance, and confirmation behavior are all covered without redundancy. Important warnings are front-loaded before the procedural confirmation detail.

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 high complexity—bulk mutation, irreversible RSVP deletion, idempotence, and a two-mode confirmation flow—the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it safely, including the confirmToken fallback. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description's explicit explanation of the confirmation-required response path.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents event_id, guest_groups, invited, and confirmToken thoroughly. The description reinforces the effect of invited:false but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set which guest groups are invited to an event (bulk).' It clearly distinguishes itself from single-guest tools like invite_guest_to_event and remove_event_invitation by emphasizing bulk group assignment and the invited:true/false semantics.

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 context: 'Use this to assign guests to events in bulk (e.g. by tier/affiliation/location).' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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