search_agendasFind OpenAgenda agendas (event calendars) by keyword — e.g. a city, venue, festival or organisation name. Returns agenda uid + slug + title. Pass the uid to the events tool. Most agendas are French.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | How many agendas to return (1-20, default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Search text, e.g. "Nantes", "festival jazz", "musée". | |
| official_only | No | If true, only official (verified) agendas. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Nantes"
+ },
+ {
+ "official_only": true,
+ "query": "festival jazz",
+ "size": 5
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Most agendas are French,' which informs geographic bias. No contradictions with annotations.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, include an example, and specify output details. No superfluous content.
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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately specifies the return values (uid, slug, title) and provides workflow context. The mention of French bias adds completeness. No major gaps for a search tool of this complexity.
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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 specifies the action (Find), the resource (OpenAgenda agendas), and the criteria (by keyword), with concrete examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on agenda search as opposed to events retrieval or other search tools.
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 actionable guidance: 'Pass the uid to the events tool.' It implies a workflow but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. Still, it offers clear contextual use.
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.