Fetch one captured event by id with its full headers, body, signature verification result (and failure reason), and every outbound delivery attempt. This is how you find out whether your forward actually reached its target and what came back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | The event id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return payload (headers, body, signature verification result, failure reason, delivery attempts) and implicitly indicates a read-only fetch. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, permissions, or what happens if the event doesn't exist, which would add further clarity.
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?
The description is two sentences long with no redundant words. It opens with the action and resource, then immediately adds value with the second sentence explaining the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema, but the description adequately explains what will be returned, covering headers, body, signature verification, and delivery attempts. It is complete for a straightforward event fetch, though it omits error scenarios and non-success response handling.
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?
The schema already documents the only parameter 'event_id' with 'The event id.', and the description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or interpretation. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one captured event by id', listing exactly what is included (headers, body, signature verification result, failure reason, delivery attempts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events or latest_event, which list events without per-event delivery details.
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 second sentence provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: to determine whether a forward reached its target and what came back. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, the use case is specific enough to guide selection among the siblings.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: buckets, events, schemas, deliveries, forwarding, verification, replay, and waiting. Even similar pairs like latest_event vs list_events are clearly differentiated by purpose, with no overlapping responsibilities.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores, such as create_bucket, list_events, and delete_bucket. The only slight deviation is 'latest_event', which uses an adjective instead of a verb, but it remains intuitive and does not disrupt the overall predictability.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but the domain covers buckets, events, schemas, deliveries, configuration, and more, so each tool serves a distinct and justified purpose. The count feels appropriate for the platform's breadth rather than excessive.
The set covers the primary lifecycle for buckets, events, and schemas, including create, read, list, and delete operations. However, there is no way to update or delete a forwarding rule after creation, and no explicit update operation for bucket metadata, leaving notable gaps in managing configurations.
