mcp

get_event_route_v1_events__event_id__get

Get a single event by ID

404s if the event doesn't exist, is unpublished, is beyond your tier's archive window, or was soft-deleted — never distinguishes which, to avoid leaking data existence beyond what the tier allows.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "data": {
    "event_id": "Event Id",
    "schema_version": "Schema Version",
    "taxonomy_version": "Taxonomy Version",
    "primary_category": "Primary Category",
    "subcategory": "Subcategory",
    "categories": [
      "string"
    ],
    "type_confidence": 1.0,
    "headline": "Headline",
    "summary": "Summary",
    "reported_at": "2023-01-01T00:00:00Z",
    "orgs": [
      "string"
    ],
    "models": [
      "string"
    ],
    "source_url": "Source Url",
    "article_count": 1
  },
  "meta": {
    "request_id": "Request Id",
    "taxonomy_version": "Taxonomy Version",
    "tier": "ApiTier"
  }
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`event_id`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral detail: 404s are returned for all failure cases and never distinguished to avoid leaking data existence. It also provides a full example response, giving the agent a clear picture of the outcome.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The main description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 404 explanation is concise and valuable. The example response is lengthy, but it serves as the only output documentation since no output schema exists, and the section headers keep it scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter GET with no output schema, the description covers the key functional aspects: success response, failure semantics, and the data structure. It does not explicitly state how event_id is passed (though the route path implies it) or mention auth, but these are likely covered by broader API context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the event_id parameter. It only repeats that it is an ID and does not explain its format, where it comes from, or any constraints. The parameter name is suggestive, but the description adds no substantive semantic value.

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 opens with 'Get a single event by ID', naming a specific verb and resource with exact scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events_route_v1_events_get or search_v1_search_get, even without naming them.

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 this tool is for fetching one event when you already have its ID, but it never explicitly mentions alternatives or says when not to use them. There is no direct guidance about choosing list_events or search for multi-event lookups.

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

All mcp 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct operation: single-event retrieval, list events, semantic search, taxonomy lookup, and magic-link auth. Even though list and search both return events, their descriptions clearly distinguish paginated listing from relevance-ranked semantic search.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are auto-generated from route paths and mix verb styles: get_event, list_events, post_magic_link, search. The pattern is inconsistent and cluttered, with redundant route segments and doubled HTTP methods like get_event_route_v1_events__event_id__get.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped set for a read-only event API with taxonomy and auth support. Every tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary surface area.

Completeness5/5

The domain is a read-only news events API, and the surface covers the core operations: list events, get a single event, semantically search events, fetch taxonomy, and request an API key. No obvious dead ends or missing operations exist for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?