ClusterHack

Get event schedule

event_schedule

Read-only

The event's timeline: an ordered list of stages/activities (opening, workshops, deadlines, closing ceremony) with title, location, time window and status (past/now/future). This is what participants see as "the schedule". Broadcast link and chat link are only included for the event's admins and registered participants — everyone else sees them blanked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, 1-based.
`page_size`	No	Results per page (max 100).
`event_slug`	Yes	Slug of the event.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: broadcast and chat links are redacted for non-admins/non-participants. It also communicates ordering and status semantics (past/now/future), which helps the agent anticipate role-dependent output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two focused sentences front-load the core resource and then add the access-control caveat. Every clause serves a purpose: content, item fields, ordering, statuses, and role-dependent link visibility.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with one required parameter, the description covers what is returned, the item fields, ordering/statuses, and the role-based blanking behavior. The optional pagination parameters are already fully described in the schema, and no output schema exists to explain further.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: event_slug, page, and page_size are each documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource ('the event's timeline') and the exact content returned: an ordered list of stages/activities with title, location, time window, and status. This clearly differentiates event_schedule from siblings like event_get and event_team_stages by naming the schedule artifact and participant-facing framing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool ('need the event's timeline/schedule') and clarifies the participant-facing scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like event_get and event_team_stages are not mentioned, so routing decisions are left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ClusterHack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain prefix and mostly target a distinct resource, but there are several near-overlapping read clusters — notably whoami/event_roles/event_my_membership (all answer 'what roles at event X'), submission_get/submission_page, team_open_roles/team_seeking_members, and company_employees/company_roster. The descriptions do an exceptional job of steering ('use this, not that'), so misselection is unlikely, but the sheer number of such pairs keeps this from a 5.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant domain_prefix + noun/verb pattern (event_, team_, submission_, company_, article_) is consistent and readable. Deviations: list_api_endpoints/list_capabilities invert the word order (verb-first) versus event_list/submission_list elsewhere, search and whoami carry no domain prefix, account_how_to_sign_in is a phrase, and read verbs vary between get/list/browse/page/preview.

Tool Count2/5

60 tools is far beyond the 25+ threshold, and the surface is purely read-only — the breadth comes from extremely granular views (22 event_* tools) and many singleton catalogs (event_cities, event_types, event_background_images, article_languages, tag_list, tech_list, company_vacancies) plus six meta/informational tools. The domain is genuinely broad and every tool is distinct, so it reads as heavy rather than chaotic, but the count is still excessive.

Completeness2/5

The set contains zero write tools — no create, update, or delete anywhere — yet the descriptions repeatedly direct callers to absent tools: event_create, event_set_branding, event_add_sponsor, event_submit_registration_answers, invite_join, team_post, team_assign_role, team_remove_member, company_fire_employee, account_export_data, and more. An agent following the descriptions will call nonexistent tools and fail. The read/browse coverage is very thorough, but the complete absence of the write side (which the descriptions themselves treat as existing) is a significant gap.

Resources

Need Help?