events-mcp

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

The description discloses that results are 'sorted by date' and limited to 'upcoming' events, providing behavioral context beyond the tool name. With no annotations, it carries the full burden, but it omits details like pagination behavior, empty result handling, or return format, leaving notable gaps.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core function and the second adds a use case. There is no redundant information and the content is front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, this description covers the basic purpose, sorting, and city requirement. However, it does not describe the expected return shape (e.g., event fields) or address edge cases like no events found. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a more complete description would be needed to fully contextualize the tool.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself only alludes to the city parameter via 'specific city' and does not add extra meaning to limit or offset beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: 'next upcoming events in a specific city', sorted by date. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_cities (which lists cities) and search_events (which searches events), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Great for finding what's happening soon' gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_events, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists cities with event counts, but there's ambiguity about whether cities with zero events are included ('which cities have events' could imply only those with events). It doesn't disclose ordering, pagination, or any other behavioral traits, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List all available cities with event counts') and then a direct use-case sentence. Every word earns its place, 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essence: what it lists and why to use it. It could clarify whether zero-event cities are included, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap. Sibling tools are about events, so this tool's niche is clear.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist. It adds context about the return value (cities and event counts) which is relevant.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all available cities'), and a distinguishing detail ('with event counts'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_upcoming_events and search_events, which focus on events rather than city-level aggregation.

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 states when to use it: 'Use this to see which cities have events and how many.' This gives a clear use case. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as 'for event details, use get_upcoming_events.'

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool searches event names, hosts, organizers, and tags, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, result format, or any other behavioral traits. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a search tool with no output schema.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the main action ('Search for...') front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and there is no fluff or 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 schema covers parameter details well, but the description lacks any mention of return value structure, pagination, or guidance on selecting this tool over siblings. Given the tool has five parameters and no output schema, the description could reasonably be more complete, though it is not severely deficient.

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?

While the input schema already provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaning by specifying what fields the query searches (event names, hosts, organizers, tags). This clarifies the semantics of the 'query' parameter beyond the schema's generic 'Search query' description, earning a score above baseline.

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 as a search operation for tech events, specifying the resource (events) and scope (across cities, searching names/hosts/organizers/tags). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_upcoming_events or list_cities, so it falls short of a 5 on this dimension.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (get_upcoming_events, list_cities). There is no mention of alternative tools or scenarios where this search would be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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