GET /places/:placeID — Get place details
Fetch full details for one Google Place ID. Useful for verifying a placeID before sending it to POST /trips (which only accepts type: "city" placeIDs and rejects venues with a 400). Same shape as a single entry from GET /places/search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| placeID | Yes | Google Place ID. Get one from `GET /places/search` or from a previous response (e.g. `event.city.placeID`). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates the tool is a GET request (read-only) and describes the return shape. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but given its simplicity, the description is adequate.
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 with two sentences and a parenthetical note. It front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint, then immediately states the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and output shape (same as GET /places/search). Given there is no output schema and only one parameter, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand how and when to use it.
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 schema provides 100% coverage with a description for placeID. The tool description adds context by clarifying it's a Google Place ID and explains where to obtain it (from GET /places/search or previous responses), enhancing the schema's minimal description.
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 fetches full details for one Google Place ID, distinguishing from the search tool. It also explains the specific use case of verifying a placeID before using it with POST /trips, establishing a distinct purpose.
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 explicitly advises using this tool to verify a placeID before sending it to POST /trips, noting that POST /trips only accepts type:'city' placeIDs and rejects venues. It also mentions the output shape matches GET /places/search, providing context for when to use each. However, it doesn't include exhaustive 'when not to use' scenarios, but the guidance is still solid.
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.
