Sessionize

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'getSessions' and 'findSession' could cause some confusion as both retrieve session information. 'getSessions' lists all sessions, while 'findSession' searches by criteria, but the overlap might lead to misselection in certain contexts.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase pattern with clear verb-noun combinations (e.g., findSession, getSchedule, getSessionsBySpeaker). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, this is well-scoped for a Sessionize server, covering core operations like searching, listing, and retrieving sessions and speakers. Each tool has a clear purpose and contributes to the functionality without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for reading and searching sessions and speakers, including schedule retrieval. However, there are minor gaps such as lack of update or delete operations for events, which might be expected in a full CRUD lifecycle, but agents can likely work around this for typical query-focused use cases.
Average 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 21, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool searches and returns full details, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination for large result sets. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the action and result without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a search function with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' include, how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that returns data, the absence of output schema means the description should compensate more, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in context.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents the two parameters ('query' and 'eventId') with their types, descriptions, and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax or eventId usage further). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search sessions by title or description' specifies the verb (search) and resource (sessions), and 'Returns matching sessions with full details' indicates the outcome. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSessions' or 'getSessionsBySpeaker', which likely also retrieve session data, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'getSessions' (which might list all sessions) or 'getSessionsBySpeaker' (which filters by speaker), leaving the agent to guess based on context. This lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions results in a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'full details including bio and social links,' which adds some context about output content. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or how it handles partial matches versus exact matches.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and key output details. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with two parameters, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details.
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?
For a search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks important contextual details like search behavior (exact vs. partial matching), authentication requirements, and differentiation from sibling tools, which would be needed for full completeness.
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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (name and eventId). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as search behavior (case sensitivity, partial matching) or eventId usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool searches for a speaker by name in a Sessionize event and returns matching speakers with full details. It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('speaker'), and scope ('Sessionize event'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getSpeakers or getSessionsBySpeaker.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getSpeakers (which might list all speakers) or getSessionsBySpeaker (which might find sessions by speaker). There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return data structure (session titles, descriptions, speakers, schedule information) but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose and return values without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.
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?
For a simple read operation with one optional parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention more about the return format (e.g., JSON structure, pagination) and operational constraints. It meets minimum viability but lacks completeness.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sessions for a Sessionize event'), and specifies what information is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSessionsBySpeaker' or 'findSession'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getSessionsBySpeaker' or 'findSession'. The description only states what the tool does without indicating appropriate contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool returns a list of sessions, but doesn't describe key traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error handling (e.g., if speaker not found), pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly without unnecessary details.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.
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?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'speakerName' as required and 'eventId' as optional with a default. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add extra meaning.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all sessions for a specific speaker' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('sessions'), and 'Returns the list of sessions the speaker is presenting' clarifies the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getSessions' (which likely gets all sessions) and 'findSpeaker' (which finds speaker details), but could be more explicit about 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 implies usage by stating it's for a 'specific speaker,' suggesting it should be used when you have a speaker name and want their sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'findSession' or 'getSessions,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that returns are 'organized by day and time slot' and notes the schedule may be empty under certain conditions. However, it doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the schedule data takes (beyond organization).
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and return structure. Second sentence provides important behavioral note. Appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what data is returned and a key condition (empty schedules), but doesn't cover error cases, authentication, or detailed return format. The absence of annotations increases the burden on the description.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the event schedule/agenda from Sessionize' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on schedule/agenda rather than sessions or speakers. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'getSessions' which might return similar data.
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 implies usage context through the note about empty schedules if event hasn't configured session times, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getSessions'. No when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (speaker details) and the default event behavior, but lacks information on potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or pagination. It does not contradict any annotations.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and parameter guidance in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds necessary information without waste.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for a read-only list operation. It covers purpose, output, and parameter logic, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or data freshness.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional parameter. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the default event behavior, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states.
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 clearly states the specific action ('List all speakers'), resource ('for a Sessionize event'), and output details ('speaker names, bios, taglines, and social links'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'findSpeaker' (likely for individual lookups) and 'getSessionsBySpeaker' (session-focused).
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?
It provides clear context on when to use this tool (to retrieve all speakers for an event) and includes a conditional rule for the eventId parameter (uses default if not provided). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like 'findSpeaker' for specific speaker searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sessionize MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeanlopezxyz/mcp-sessionize/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeanlopezxyz/mcp-sessionize)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-sessionize MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeanlopezxyz/mcp-sessionize/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jeanlopezxyz/mcp-sessionize)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jeanlopezxyz/mcp-sessionize'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server