GET /events/:eventID/sponsors — List event sponsors
Returns the sponsors for an event, ordered by tier (primary → supporting) then display order. Deleted sponsors are filtered out.
Access: any active DCer who can see the event — sponsors are public.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventID | Yes | Event ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses ordering by tier and filtering of deleted sponsors, and notes access requirements. With no annotations, it carries the full burden, but it does not cover error handling, pagination, or other potential behaviors.
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 and front-loaded with the HTTP method and path. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no redundant information.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, ordering, filtering, and access. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the response format or potential error cases.
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?
The input schema describes the single parameter 'eventID' as 'Event ID', which is sufficient. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 the tool lists event sponsors, provides the HTTP method and path, and specifies ordering by tier and filtering of deleted sponsors. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'event' or 'events' which deal with different resources.
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 mentions that access is for any active DCer who can see the event, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any alternatives among the many sibling tools.
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.
