Read the current state of a meetwhen event: how many people responded, who, and the best overlapping time(s) so far. Use the event id returned by create_event (or found in a meetwhen /e/ URL).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | The event id returned by create_event. | |
| timezone | No | IANA timezone to render the best-time labels in (default UTC). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation but lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid event_id) or side effects. The statement 'current state' implies dynamism but could be more explicit.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a practical usage note. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers core outputs and event_id sourcing. It doesn't detail the exact response structure, but the mention of 'how many, who, best times' is sufficient for a basic understanding.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the event_id originates from create_event or a URL, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.
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 reads the current state of a meetwhen event, listing specific outputs (responses, people, best times). It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_event by being a read operation.
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 instructs when to use the tool (after creating an event or from a URL), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling. However, the context is clear given only one sibling.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: create_event generates a new event, while get_event retrieves event details. No functional overlap exists.
Both tools follow the consistent 'verb_noun' pattern (create_event, get_event), making them predictable and easy to use.
With only 2 tools, the set feels minimal but not unreasonable for a simple polling service. It is on the low end of the typical 3-15 range.
The tools cover the core workflow of creating and viewing events, but lack update and delete functionality, which are minor gaps for a poll-like service.