List up to 100 recent event email sends and their queued, delivery, failure, bounce, complaint, or suppression status; optionally for one contact.
| 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 | No | Optional contact id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral details: the 100-item cap, recency, allowed statuses, and optional contact filter. It does not disclose ordering or pagination, but that is a minor gap given the safety 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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and result limit, then covers status values and the optional filter. Every phrase adds information without redundancy.
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?
With a simple three-parameter schema and no output schema, the description conveys the output domain, the optional contact filter, and the event scope. It leaves ordering and the precise meaning of 'recent' implicit, but an agent can still select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including the meaning and source of eventId and org. The description only adds the optional contact filter and the 'recent' constraint, which is useful but not necessary because the schema already documents each parameter well.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a bounded resource ('up to 100 recent event email sends'), and explicitly enumerates the statuses returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling email tools such as send_email or list_email_templates.
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 use case clearly: retrieve recent event email send statuses, optionally filtered to one contact. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough to route an agent away from email creation and template tools.
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.