Skip to main content
Glama

Event Official Release Status Verifier

verify_event_status

Verify whether an upcoming event has officially released its primary numbers, checking SHA-256 source fingerprints and consensus vs actual release deltas.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify_event_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesEvent UUID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noticeNoFree-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
resultsYesTool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
history_limitNoPresent when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
deprecated_fieldsNoPresent only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
      +  "items": {
      +    "additionalProperties": true,
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds useful behavioral detail by naming SHA-256 source fingerprints and consensus-vs-actual release deltas. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not clarify what non-read-only behavior occurs, what permissions are needed, or whether any state is recorded.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently states both the verification goal and the checking mechanisms.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter, complete schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be stronger by clarifying the non-read-only annotation behavior, but the core verification concept is adequately covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter, event_id, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description refers to an upcoming event but adds no additional meaning about the event_id format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ("Verify") and resource ("whether an upcoming event has officially released its primary numbers"), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby event-related siblings, but the focus on official release status is distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking an upcoming event's official release status, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_event_countdown, get_event_expected_impact, or verify_claim. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.