List up to 200 event sponsors with sponsor id, name, tier, website, description, booth flag, and custom fields. Use the returned sponsorId with update_sponsor or delete_sponsor.
| 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the 200-item cap, the exact data fields returned, and the custom-fields aspect. This gives the agent a concrete expectation of what the call will yield without repeating the annotation safety profile.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, scope, limit, and return fields; the second provides actionable integration guidance. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 list tool, the description is complete: it names required inputs implicitly through referencing event sponsors, the schema documents eventId and org, and the description enumerates the return fields with the 200-item cap. The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) fill the safety and completeness profile, so nothing essential is missing.
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%, so both org and eventId are already documented in the input schema. The description does not repeat or enhance parameter semantics, though it does connect the returned sponsorId to follow-up tools. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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: 'List up to 200 event sponsors' and enumerates the returned fields (sponsor id, name, tier, website, description, booth flag, custom fields). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_sponsor, update_sponsor, and delete_sponsor by being the listing/read operation.
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 gives clear downstream guidance: 'Use the returned sponsorId with update_sponsor or delete_sponsor.' This implies the intended workflow of retrieving sponsors before modifying or deleting them. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it, but there is no competing list-sponsors sibling, so the context is sufficient.
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.