get_guestRetrieve complete guest details for an event using guest ID, ticket key, guest key, or email. Returns personal information and ticket-order details.
Get complete details for one event guest by guest ID, ticket key, guest key, or email. The response contains personal information and ticket-order details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Guest ID, ticket key, guest key, or email. | |
| 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: -falsev0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context about the response containing personal information and ticket-order details, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction 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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The core capability and return content are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only get tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (personal info and ticket-order details) and the identifier options. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention the response shape more explicitly.
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 50% (only 'id' is documented). The description repeats the id types but adds nothing about 'event_id.' It does not compensate for the missing schema description, leaving the second required parameter under-explained.
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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('complete details for one event guest'), and specifies the supported identifier types. It distinguishes from list_guests by mentioning 'one event guest,' but does not explicitly route to 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_guests or update_guest_status. The purpose implies a single-guest lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.