Search for tech events, startup meetups, AI events, and more across cities. Searches event names, hosts, organizers, and tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Filter by city key (e.g. 'bengaluru', 'sf', 'new-delhi') | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g. 'AI meetup', 'hackathon', 'startup dinner') | |
| to_date | No | End date filter (ISO 8601) | |
| from_date | No | Start date filter (ISO 8601, e.g. '2026-05-20') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
