GET /events/:eventID/meetups/:meetupID/attendees — List meetup attendees
Returns the list of attendees who have RSVPd to a specific meetup. Same profile shape as /events/:eventID/attendees.
Access: any active DCer who can see the event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventID | Yes | Event ID | |
| meetupID | Yes | Meetup 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 discloses the return type (list of attendees who RSVPd) and access condition, but does not mention pagination, error handling, or rate limits. The reference to another endpoint's shape adds some context.
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?
Description is two sentences plus an access line, all front-loaded with key information. No redundant content. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.
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 list endpoint with 2 required params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output, access, and shape reference. Minor gaps: no mention of empty results or error cases, but adequate for the complexity.
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 basic parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the path structure. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no additional semantic value is provided.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'meetup attendees', and scope 'for a specific meetup'. It references another endpoint for profile shape, distinguishing from siblings like event_attendees and event_meetup_rsvp.
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?
Access condition is provided ('any active DCer who can see the event'), and the description implicitly differentiates from event_attendees by mentioning the same shape as /events/:eventID/attendees. However, explicit when-not or alternative comparisons are missing.
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.
