get_eventsReturns upcoming local Sedona events including library events and festivals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| festivals | Yes | ||
| library_events | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "festivals": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "library_events": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "library_events",
+ "festivals"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context about geographical scope (Sedona) and types of events (library, festivals), which adds value beyond 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?
Single sentence with 9 words. No unnecessary information. Every word is informative and earned.
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 existence of output schema (not shown), description provides sufficient context about the nature of returned data. Covers scope and examples adequately for a simple list 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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by indicating what the returned events contain (upcoming, local, Sedona, specific types), compensating for the lack of parameter details.
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 it returns upcoming local Sedona events with specific examples (library events and festivals). Verb 'returns' and resource 'events' are clear. However, does not differentiate from sibling 'get_concerts' which may overlap.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied due to no parameters and simple retrieval, but no alternatives mentioned.
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.