get_event_seats_recentRenamed: use get_event_seats with view "recent".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Seats returned; `truncated` says more moved. | |
| all_in | No | Adds each price after fees beside it. On by default; false returns the prices before fees alone. | |
| minutes | No | How far back to look. | |
| section | No | Only this section, by ticket code (e.g. "104"). | |
| event_id | Yes | The event to read. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / all_inAdded value: +{
+ "default": true,
+ "description": "Adds each price after fees beside it. On by default; false returns the prices before fees alone.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / limit / maximumRemoved value: -500Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all: no mention of deprecation semantics, whether calling it still works, or what it returns.
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 short sentence with zero padding, and the redirect is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tombstone notice, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification.
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 redirect stub it covers the essential point (use get_event_seats with view "recent"), and the schema and annotations handle the rest. It never explicitly states the deprecation or whether this alias still functions, leaving a gap an agent must infer.
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 all five parameters (limit, all_in, minutes, section, event_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only references the "view" argument of the successor tool, adding nothing for this tool's own parameters.
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 does not state what the tool does; it only announces a rename and points to get_event_seats with view "recent". An agent learns this is a superseded alias, but nothing about the resource or operation (recent seat moves) is conveyed beyond what the name/title already imply.
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?
It explicitly names the replacement tool and the argument needed (view "recent"), which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs to pick the right sibling. It lacks any statement of when the old alias might still be valid, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.