luma-events-mcp

create_event

Create a Luma event with a title, start time, and location, and optionally add an end time, markdown description, and cover image.

Instructions

Create a new Luma event.

Args:
    name: The title of the event
    start_at: Start time in ISO 8601 format (e.g., "2024-12-31T23:59:00Z")
    location: Event location with place_id (Google Maps) and optional description
    end_at: End time in ISO 8601 format (optional)
    description_md: Event description in Markdown format (optional)
    cover_url: URL for the event cover image (optional)

Returns:
    The created event data or an error message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`end_at`	No
`location`	Yes
`start_at`	Yes
`cover_url`	No
`description_md`	No

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return value ('created event data or an error message') but does not disclose whether creation is idempotent, whether authentication or specific permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. The verb 'create' implies mutation but adds no depth beyond that.

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 front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by a cleanly organized Args list and a Returns line. Every section earns its place and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a six-parameter tool, though the per-parameter descriptions are minimal rather than richly detailed.

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?

All six parameters and the return value are covered, and an output schema exists so return-format detail is unnecessary. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and several query-like siblings, the description lacks sibling routing, auth/prerequisite information, and side-effect disclosure, leaving an agent to guess when this is the correct call and what the consequences are.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by documenting all six parameters with meaningful semantics: name is the title, start_at/end_at get ISO 8601 format with a concrete example, location is explained as a place_id from Google Maps with optional description, and optionality flags are provided for the four optional fields. This goes well beyond the bare schema names, though the descriptions are terse and only start_at gets a full example.

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 first sentence 'Create a new Luma event.' names a specific verb (create) and resource (Luma event), which makes the purpose immediately clear. It also implies differentiation from sibling tools like list_events, get_event, and update_event by the verb alone, even though those siblings are not explicitly named.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_event for modifying an existing event or list_events for viewing. The use case is only implied by the verb 'create'; there are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server