search_eventsSearch event series by name, country or vertical. Each row carries edition count, last and next start dates and the largest captured exhibitor count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Full-text phrase matched on the event name. | |
| page | No | 1-based page, 20 rows each. | |
| country | No | ISO-3166 alpha-2 (TH, DE, JP …). | |
| vertical | No | Vertical slug (composites, mice, …). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what each returned row contains (edition count, last/next start dates, largest exhibitor count) — useful behavior beyond the annotations, especially with no output schema.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what can be searched, the second front-loads what comes back. No filler or redundancy.
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 output schema and a simple 4-param read tool, the description covers the search dimensions and the row shape well. It omits any note on result limits or how to page through beyond what the schema specifies, a minor gap.
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 every parameter (q, page, country, vertical) is already documented with format, pattern and range. The description only restates the filter dimensions (name, country, vertical) without adding syntax or matching semantics, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Search) and resource (event series) plus the three filter axes — name, country, vertical. An agent can identify it as the text/geo lookup entry point, though it never names the sibling tools (get_event, upcoming_events) it differs from.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Search event series by name, country or vertical'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to get_event for a single record. Siblings exist but are never referenced.
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.