Public programs and labeled demo data; contact the organizer to ask about joining.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_events"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the dataset contains public programs and labeled demo data, without saying what a call returns, whether results are filtered, or any rate/scope limits.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized. However, it is an unstructured fragment that leads with data provenance instead of the tool's function, so it is not front-loaded on what the agent needs.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place that can say what comes back, and it never does; it also omits any note on how 'public' vs 'demo' data affects results. For a listing tool this leaves the agent guessing at the return shape.
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?
The schema takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is lost.
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 text never states a verb or that it returns events; 'Public programs and labeled demo data' describes the content domain rather than the action. Against siblings like get_calendar and get_catalog there is no differentiation of scope.
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?
'Contact the organizer to ask about joining' is advice about the underlying activity, not about when an agent should call this tool versus get_calendar or get_catalog. No trigger condition, no exclusions, no alternative named.
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.