Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Weezevent MCP Server

Weezevent MCP Server

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

weezevent_status

Verify that your Cotlet account, credits, and Weezevent connection are ready before running event, order, or attendee workflows.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Weezevent are ready: account, credits and Weezevent connection.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "weezevent_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the check covers account, credits, and Weezevent connection, which is useful scope, but it does not explain what happens when a check fails or what the result looks like.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is clear immediately. The phrase repeats "account" and could be tightened slightly, but it remains efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is reasonably complete for identifying the check's scope. However, without an output schema it should do more to explain what the readiness result contains or how to interpret a failure.

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?

This tool has zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 uses a clear verb ("Check") and names the resources: Cotlet.dev account readiness, credits, and the Weezevent connection. It distinguishes itself from the sibling browser-interaction tools by being a readiness check rather than an action, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrasing implies this is a preflight check to run before using Weezevent actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or which sibling to call instead if it fails. The intended usage is inferable but not fully specified.

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