Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@chilipiper-mcp Generate a booking link for the sales-team queue"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server for ChiliPiper — route leads, generate booking links, and manage scheduling from Claude Code, Cursor, or any MCP-compatible client.
Tool | Description |
| Route a lead through a Concierge router via the marketing API. Returns a booking calendar URL. |
| Route a lead via the Concierge fire endpoint for inbound routers. |
| Generate a direct booking link for a queue or meeting type. |
| Validate your configuration and test API connectivity. |
Related MCP server: Calendly MCP Server
API Key: Get your ChiliPiper REST API key from your ChiliPiper admin settings
Domain: Your ChiliPiper organization slug (the part in URLs like calendar.chilipiper.com/YOUR-DOMAIN/...)
git clone https://github.com/hyypeman/chilipiper-mcp.git
cd chilipiper-mcp
npm installAdd to your project's .mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"chilipiper": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/chilipiper-mcp/index.js"],
"env": {
"CHILIPIPER_API_KEY": "your-api-key",
"CHILIPIPER_DOMAIN": "your-domain"
}
}
}
}Or use the CLI:
claude mcp add chilipiper \
--command "node /path/to/chilipiper-mcp/index.js" \
--env CHILIPIPER_API_KEY=your-api-key \
--env CHILIPIPER_DOMAIN=your-domainUse the same stdio configuration — command: "node", args: ["/path/to/index.js"] with the environment variables above.
Variable | Required | Description |
| Yes | Your ChiliPiper REST API key |
| Yes | Your organization's ChiliPiper domain slug |
Once connected, you can ask your AI assistant things like:
"Route this lead to the inbound-demo router: john@acme.com"
"Generate a booking link for the sales-team queue"
"Check if my ChiliPiper config is working"
MIT
Validate ChiliPiper MCP configuration. Shows current settings and tests API connectivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 indicates the tool is non-destructive (validate, show, test) but does not detail behaviors like error handling or output format. Given that it likely has no side effects, the description is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple config validation tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It could mention that it is safe to run multiple times, but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds context by explaining what the tool does with the config, which is sufficient. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool validates configuration and tests API connectivity. It uses specific verbs ('Validate', 'Shows', 'tests') and identifies the resource ('ChiliPiper MCP configuration'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_booking_link, which are focused on different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for initial setup verification or debugging, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, the context of siblings (booking/routing) suggests it is a configuration check, and the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate a direct booking link for a ChiliPiper queue or meeting type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queue_slug | Yes | Queue or booking page slug | |
| No | Pre-fill lead email | ||
| first_name | No | Pre-fill lead first name | |
| last_name | No | Pre-fill lead last name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits. The term 'generate' implies a read-like operation but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 12 words that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, but the description does not explain what the link looks like or its format. It covers the purpose adequately but could provide more context about the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage; each parameter has a basic description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable for baseline scoring.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Generate' and clearly identifies the resource 'direct booking link for a ChiliPiper queue or meeting type'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that cover configuration and routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like route_concierge or route_lead. No context for appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Route a lead via the ChiliPiper Concierge fire endpoint. Returns the booking calendar URL for an inbound router.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| router_slug | Yes | The inbound Concierge router URL slug | |
| Yes | Lead's email address | ||
| first_name | No | Lead's first name | |
| last_name | No | Lead's last name | |
| company | No | Lead's company | |
| phone | No | Lead's phone | |
| extra_fields | No | Additional fields as key-value pairs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It only mentions the return value (booking calendar URL) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether the action is destructive. The agent cannot assess impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action and output. However, the first sentence could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits many details: error handling, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., valid router_slug), and what happens to the lead. Incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool routes a lead and returns a booking calendar URL, with specific reference to ChiliPiper Concierge. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'route_lead', which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'route_lead' or 'get_booking_link'. The description lacks context for appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Route a lead through a ChiliPiper Concierge router. Submits lead/form data and returns a booking calendar URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Lead's email address (required) | ||
| router | Yes | Router name/slug to route through | |
| first_name | No | Lead's first name | |
| last_name | No | Lead's last name | |
| company | No | Lead's company name | |
| phone | No | Lead's phone number | |
| title | No | Lead's job title | |
| redirect_url | No | URL to redirect after booking | |
| locale | No | Language locale (e.g. en-US) | |
| account_id | No | Salesforce Account ID to associate | |
| meeting_type_id | No | Force a specific meeting type by UUID | |
| extra_fields | No | Additional form fields as key-value pairs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that it submits data and returns a URL, omitting side effects, idempotency, error handling, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, conveying the core action and output. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the routing workflow, expected behavior, or how the booking URL is returned, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, describing all 12 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but does not contradict it. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Route a lead') and the system ('ChiliPiper Concierge router'), and mentions the return of a booking URL. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'route_concierge', leaving ambiguity for the agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'route_concierge' or 'get_booking_link'. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0check_configget_booking_linkroute_conciergeroute_leadMost tools are distinct, but route_concierge and route_lead overlap significantly in purpose and output, potentially causing confusion for an agent.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_config, get_booking_link, route_concierge, route_lead).
With 4 tools, the set is appropriately scoped for a lead routing and booking service, covering core actions without being unwieldy.
The set covers configuration, booking link generation, and lead routing, but lacks tools for managing queues, updating settings, or handling lifecycle operations.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Discover and call 10,000+ production APIs from one MCP server. Pay-per-call billing for AI agents.
Apideck Unified API MCP — 330 tools across 200+ SaaS connectors (accounting, CRM, HRIS, ATS).
Developer docs for building on RideDesk: booking API, widgets, per-account booking MCP. No auth.
Work your Luca workspace from any MCP client: 183 API tools + 15 task tools for leads and calls.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hyypeman/chilipiper-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
