Yenta Directory

Search a destination's events by name

destination_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find a named destination's events overlapping a date window (default from today; a recurring event's span is not a single date — read its recurrence; the destination's own host calls this search_events).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`area`	No	Area slug from destination_facets.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items to return.
`cursor`	No	Number of items to skip; pass `next_cursor` from the previous page.
`to_date`	No	ISO date; open-ended if omitted.
`category`	No	Category slug from destination_facets.
`from_date`	No	ISO date; defaults to today.
`destination`	Yes	Destination name or slug; call search_destinations to discover one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item`	No
`items`	No
`reason`	No
`sample`	No
`source`	No	FR-13: which approved revision an answer was read from, and how fresh. ``source`` is ``approved-content-revision:<id>`` for every read that answers from one venue, and the literal ``directory`` for the two cross-venue reads, which have no single revision to cite.
`status`	Yes
`pagination`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / sample

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Sample"
+}

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behaviors: from_date defaults to today, and recurring events must be read via their recurrence rather than a single date span. This is useful context beyond the schema.

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?

One sentence with the main action front-loaded and caveats following. The semicolon and em-dash make it slightly dense, but every clause earns its place and there is no padding.

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 full parameter schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious top-level behaviors and the host-alias mapping. Minor omissions such as exact boundary inclusivity are acceptable because the structured schema fills most remaining gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the date-window filter and today default, but adds no new per-parameter semantics (e.g., slug meaning, cursor usage, limit constraints) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find a named destination's events' with an explicit date-window constraint. This distinguishes it from the many destination_* fact/listing siblings and generic search tools, and the alias note reinforces identity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools is given; the description only describes the operation. The date-window and recurrence notes are behavioral constraints rather than tool-selection guidance. The host-alias clause is a weak routing hint but not a comparison against siblings.

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

All Yenta Directory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?