get_eventsAccount event feed (job.completed, pipeline.completed, veille.run_completed…). Cursor-based: since_id takes the last_id of the previous call.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_events"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| types | No | ||
| since_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cursor-based pagination mechanism, which is useful, but doesn't mention rate limits, ordering, or retention. Adequate with annotations but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by pagination detail. No wasted words; efficient but could include more parameter context without bloat.
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 tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description explains one parameter and the event concept, but leaves limit and types undocumented and doesn't explain return shape or pagination termination. Gaps remain for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It only clarifies since_id semantics (takes last_id) but doesn't describe limit or types. Partial compensation yields a baseline 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 states it is an 'Account event feed' and gives concrete examples of event types, distinguishing it from sibling CRUD tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_jobs, but the resource (events) is clear.
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?
Usage is implied by the cursor-based explanation and event examples, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives. An agent can infer this is for polling events, but no prerequisites are stated.
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.