subscribeStart a double-opt-in email subscription. Sends a confirmation email; consent is recorded only on confirm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | Area id, e.g. 'notl'. Defaults to the only area. | |
| Yes | |||
| interests | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: sends a confirmation email and records consent only on confirmation. This provides good transparency beyond basic purpose.
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 efficient sentences with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded, and every word adds value.
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 tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core process but lacks details on parameter usage (e.g., interests) and edge cases (e.g., duplicate subscriptions). Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 coverage is only 33% with only 'area' having a description. The description does not add meaning for 'email' or 'interests' parameters, failing to compensate for low schema coverage.
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 starts a double-opt-in email subscription, specifying the verb 'start' and resource 'email subscription'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on events/venues.
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?
The description implies use for initiating email subscriptions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or any exclusions. Adequate but lacks depth.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: direct retrieval of events/venues via get_event/get_venue, keyword search via search_events, curated summaries via whats_on, itinerary planning via plan_visit, and subscription management via subscribe. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: get_event, get_venue, search_events, plan_visit. The exceptions are 'whats_on' (an idiomatic phrase) and 'subscribe' (a bare verb), but these are still intuitive and don't create confusion. Overall, the naming is mostly consistent with minor deviations.
Six tools is perfectly scoped for a local events and things-to-do server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat, making the set feel complete yet manageable.
The core domain is well covered: searching, retrieving event/venue details, getting a curated overview, and planning a visit. Minor gaps include no direct way to list events for a specific venue or manage subscription status (e.g., unsubscribe), but these are peripheral and agents can work around them with existing tools.