luma-events-mcp

add_host

Add a host to a Luma event using its event ID and the host's email address; include a name when the host has no Luma profile yet.

Instructions

Add a host to a Luma event.

Args:
    event_id: The unique identifier of the event (e.g., "evt-ABC123")
    email: Email address of the host to add
    name: Name of the host (ignored if they already have a Luma profile)

Returns:
    Result of adding host or an error message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`email`	Yes
`event_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It discloses one useful behavior, that name is ignored if a Luma profile exists, and mentions a generic result/error return, but it does not cover permissions, duplicate-host behavior, idempotency, or side effects such as notifications.

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 compact and well organized: a clear purpose sentence, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence provides useful information, with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple three-string-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the resource, all parameters with useful semantics, one edge-case behavior, and the return shape. It lacks explicit usage exclusions and deeper behavioral caveats, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly for the stated purpose.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by adding an example format for event_id, clarifying email's role, and explaining the behavior of name for existing Luma profiles. It does not specify email validation or explicitly note name's optionality, but the provided semantics are sufficient for correct invocation.

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-object statement, 'Add a host to a Luma event,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_events, get_guests, and update_event, none of which perform host addition.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's purpose and name, so the agent must infer that this is the tool for adding hosts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server