get-eventOne published event: description, ticket types with prices and whether each is sold out, what the registration form asks, and how people get in (entry.url and Spanish entry.instructions to relay).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The event slug, from search-events or the event URL (/e/{slug}). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it discloses what the response contains (per-ticket sold-out flags, form questions) and flags that entry instructions are in Spanish and meant to be relayed, which is a behavioral nuance an agent would otherwise miss.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the resource and then listing the payload contents; no filler or redundancy. It is dense but every clause maps to something the caller gets back, so nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return contents, which it does in reasonable detail. The remaining gap is error/not-found or unpublished-event behavior, which is minor for a single-parameter read tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations.
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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (/e/{slug}), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter and does not need to.
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?
States a specific verb/resource pair ('get one published event') and enumerates the payload: description, ticket types with prices and sold-out status, registration form questions, and entry instructions. The word 'published' implicitly distinguishes it from draft-event, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no naming of alternatives such as search-events for discovery or draft-event for unpublished events. The only routing hint ('from search-events') lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent must infer that this is the detail-lookup step after searching.
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.
Last observed