The event's scheduled agenda grouped by day and room, time-sorted. Optionally limit to one day (YYYY-MM-DD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | Limit to one day, YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| org | No | Organization slug. Only needed when you belong to multiple organizations; must be one returned by list_my_orgs. | |
| eventId | Yes | Event id, as returned by list_events. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that results are grouped by day and room and time-sorted, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or response fields, but for a read-only agenda tool this is sufficient detail.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core behavior (agenda grouping and sorting) and appends the optional filtering capability. Every word contributes, with no wasted or repetitive content. This is a model of concise expression.
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 read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool returns and how it is organized. It doesn't enumerate individual agenda fields, but the grouping and sorting information gives the agent a clear expectation. The missing output schema is partially compensated by the description's structural detail.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (eventId, day, org). The description echoes the day parameter's format and optionality but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus the 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 identifies the tool as returning the event's scheduled agenda, with specific grouping by day and room and time-sorting, which distinguishes it from raw session listing tools like list_sessions. It lacks an explicit verb but the resource and output structure are unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when to use the tool (any time the event's agenda is needed) and mentions the optional day filter, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. With sibling tools like list_sessions and get_session present, a brief routing note would have helped. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools use distinct resource+action patterns and descriptions actively disambiguate similar cases, but several pairs remain easy to confuse: search vs semantic_search, send_email vs send_speaker_message, and the cluster around submission handling (decide_submission, set_submission_status, update_form_pipeline). The descriptions help, but the overlap is more than a single edge case.
The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (create_session, update_sponsor, list_events) and prefixes are applied predictably. Minor deviations like semantic_search, bare search, check_in_attendee, and list_tracks_rooms break the pattern slightly, but they are still readable and not chaotic.
55 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even for a broad event-management platform, and it exceeds the 50+ threshold for severe over-scoping. Many tools are micro-variants of the same domain—multiple send_* tools and several submission-status tools—creating high selection burden for an agent.
The server covers a wide range of event, CRM, session, sponsor, form, and email workflows, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: events can be created and read but not updated or deleted, email templates have no update/delete path, and full form submission details and approval actions are absent. These are significant but not catastrophic because much of the core scheduling and contact workflow is covered.