Run metered hybrid vector and text search over accessible organization records. Optionally restrict results to one event. Returns at most 20 permission-filtered results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | Organization slug. Only needed when you belong to multiple organizations; must be one returned by list_my_orgs. | |
| query | Yes | Semantic search text (2–200 characters). | |
| eventId | No | Event id, as returned by list_events. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the search is metered, permission-filtered, capped at 20 results, and optionally scoped to a single event. These details materially affect how an agent should use and interpret the tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then key constraints. Every clause adds value: metered, hybrid vector/text, accessible org records, event filter, result cap, and permission filtering.
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?
Given the annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential invocation context and return limits. It does not describe the shape of individual results, but with no output schema that is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.
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 the input schema already documents org, query, and eventId. The description's mention of optional event restriction loosely reinforces eventId, but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action and resource: running metered hybrid vector and text search over accessible organization records, with optional event filtering. It clearly distinguishes this from contact-specific searches like search_contacts, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'search'.
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 use for semantic/hybrid search over organization records, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' or 'search_contacts' tools. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues.
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.