get_eventFetch full details for a specific Luma event using its event ID. Access all event information, including scheduling and registration data, without extra requests.
Get complete details for one Luma event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.5Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and external-data expectations. The description adds only 'complete details,' which hints at the response breadth but provides no explicit behavior about missing events, freshness, or response format.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and does not repeat information already present in the title.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description and schema are enough to construct the call. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what 'complete details' means, and the openWorldHint suggests external mutation but no re-fetch guidance is provided.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to event_id beyond the schema. Although the parameter is simple and self-named, the description should have compensated for the lack of schema descriptions and did not.
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?
States the specific operation 'Get' and the resource 'Luma event', and qualifies the action as retrieving one event, which distinguishes it from listing or mutating events. The description is immediately understandable and maps directly to the tool's name and title.
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 'for one Luma event' implies this is for single-event retrieval, while the sibling list_events suggests the plural counterpart, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over list_events or any alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or fallbacks are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.