GET /events/:eventID/agenda — Get your personal agenda for an event
Returns the sessions and meetups YOU have on your personal agenda for an event:
Sessions you bookmarked from the schedule.
Meetups you RSVPd to.
Access: caller must hold a valid ticket to the event.
Use POST /events/:eventID/schedule/:sessionID/bookmark and POST /events/:eventID/meetups/:meetupID/rsvp to manage entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventID | Yes | Event ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns personal agenda entries (sessions and meetups) and notes the access requirement. While it doesn't cover all behavioral details (e.g., error cases, pagination), it sufficiently discloses what the tool does and its read nature.
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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. Each sentence adds value: endpoint, return content, access condition, and related endpoints. No fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the return values, access requirements, and links to management endpoints. It lacks only minor details like response format or error handling, making it nearly complete.
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 one parameter (eventID) described as 'Event ID'. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('for an event'). Since the schema already covers the parameter, baseline 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 clearly states it 'gets your personal agenda for an event' and specifies it returns bookmarked sessions and RSVP'd meetups. It differentiates from siblings like event_schedule (full schedule) and event_agendas (possibly all agendas) by emphasizing the personal aspect.
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 provides a prerequisite ('caller must hold a valid ticket') and mentions related endpoints for managing entries, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool. While context is given, stronger guidance on alternative tools would improve score.
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.
Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.
85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.
The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.
