geopolitical_eventOne original-source event with separate incident, publication and capture dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | Knowledge cutoff with timezone, e.g. 2024-06-30T23:59:59Z; omit for latest. | |
| event_id | Yes | Event ID from history results: exactly 64 lowercase hexadecimal characters. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / as_of / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / as_of / defaultRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / as_of / descriptionAdded value: +"Knowledge cutoff with timezone, e.g. 2024-06-30T23:59:59Z; omit for latest."Input schema / properties / as_of / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / properties / event_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Event ID from history results: exactly 64 lowercase hexadecimal characters."Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"geopolitical_eventArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context regarding the data structure by specifying the presence of 'incident, publication and capture dates.' This informs the agent about the granularity of the data returned. However, it does not describe operational behaviors like error handling or rate limiting.
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 highly concise and professional, stating the core function in a single sentence. Every word contributes to defining the nature and content of the retrieved event.
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 that the input parameters are fully documented in the schema and the safety profile is handled by annotations, the description is sufficient for the agent to understand what kind of deep detail it can expect. It is complete without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Since the schema description coverage is 100%, the tool already comprehensively documents its inputs. The description merely reinforces the concept of a single 'event' rather than adding semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what is already defined.
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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving a single, original-source event. While it lacks a strong action verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve,' the phrase 'One original-source event' clearly defines the resource being accessed.
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 tool fails to provide any guidance on when to use this specific tool relative to its many siblings. It only describes the content of the result, offering no comparison to search functions like `geopolitical_history` or `geopolitical_sources`.
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.