Busca eventos públicos y publicados (webinars, congresos, talleres, hackatones...) del ecosistema de humanidades digitales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pais | No | ||
| tipo | No | ||
| desde | No | Fecha ISO mínima de inicio (starts_at) | |
| hasta | No | Fecha ISO máxima de inicio (starts_at) | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| ciudad | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| modalidad | No | ||
| solo_proximos | No | Si es true, solo eventos que aún no han empezado |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that only 'públicos y publicados' events are included, which is a useful constraint, but it fails to disclose other important traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, sorting, or what fields are returned.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope. However, it is somewhat under-specified, which slightly reduces the score since brevity is not a substitute for essential 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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 optional parameters, multiple enums, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is not complete enough to use the tool effectively. It lacks detail on query behavior, pagination, result structure, and how filters interact, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 input schema has 10 parameters but only 30% have descriptions. The description does not explain any parameter (like pais, query, modalidad, or offset) and does not compensate for the low schema coverage. The parenthetical event types are not mapped to the 'tipo' enum, so no additional meaning is provided.
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 'Busca eventos públicos y publicados' with a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('eventos'), plus a domain scope ('humanidades digitales') and examples of event types. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on events, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling search tools like buscar_proyectos or obtener_evento. The only context is the domain and event types, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.