Get an event contact's profile, event status, sessions, and notes count. Returns the published speaker card link when one exists. Free-text fields are labeled as untrusted content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | |
| contactId | Yes | Contact id from list_speakers or search_contacts. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it enumerates what the response contains and calls out that 'Free-text fields are labeled as untrusted content,' which is important for downstream handling. No contradiction with annotations.
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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, adds a conditional return nuance, and closes with a security-relevant warning. Every sentence earns its place.
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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the main return facets and a notable conditional field. It does not specify response shape or status codes, but that is not essential for an agent deciding whether to call this tool with eventId and contactId.
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 org, eventId, and contactId all documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, but it does not need to because the schema already provides adequate definitions and even names the source tools for IDs.
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 and resource: 'Get an event contact's profile, event status, sessions, and notes count.' It also names a conditional return value ('published speaker card link'), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from related tools like list_speakers, search_contacts, or update_contact.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a single contact's aggregated profile and event-related details by eventId and contactId. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the scoped language and required IDs provide sufficient contextual guidance.
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.