get_event_detailGet full detail for a Tuki event: description, type, start date, "from" price, location, canonical ticketing URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Event slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds the field list returned, which is useful, but does not disclose error handling, requirements for the slug, or anything beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists the specific data fields returned. There is no extraneous content or repetition of schema information.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description provides a clear summary of the returned fields and is adequate for a one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations. It does not mention how the slug is obtained (e.g., via search_events), but this is a minor gap for a simple detail retrieval tool.
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 input schema has full 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter (described as 'Event slug.'). The tool description does not add additional meaning about the slug, but the schema already documents it sufficiently, so a baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get full detail') and specific resource ('a Tuki event'), enumerating the key fields returned (description, type, start date, price, location, ticketing URL). This distinguishes it from sibling detail tools for other entity types like accommodations or cars.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_events to first obtain a slug. The scope is implied by the name and description ('Tuki event'), but there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: get_* tools retrieve details for specific entity types, search_* tools query specific verticals, and list_* tools enumerate categories. The potential overlap between search_accommodations and search_hotels is explicitly disambiguated in descriptions, and search_unified vs per-vertical searches have clear routing rules.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_*_detail for lookups, search_* for queries, list_* for enumerations, and recommend as the sole one-word but still predictable exception. Naming is uniform with snake_case throughout, making the overall structure highly predictable.
With 23 tools, the server is on the heavier side, but the breadth of verticals (accommodations, cars, events, experiences, hotels, destinations, bus routes, travel guides, solutions) justifies each tool's presence. The number is slightly above the ideal but still well-scoped for a multi-category marketplace.
The tool surface covers the full browsing and recommendation lifecycle: search and list across verticals, retrieve detailed information for any entity, access editorial travel guides, and generate checkout URLs for booking. No critical operations are missing for the server's purpose as a read-only recommendation and conversion layer.