registration_summaryCount guest approval states and check-ins for an event, delivering a privacy-conscious summary without exposing guest identities.
Count guest approval states and check-ins for an event across all guest pages without returning guest identities.
| 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. The description adds useful behavioral context that the aggregation spans all guest pages (handles pagination internally) and that it deliberately withholds guest identities. 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?
One sentence, no filler, with the essential scope and privacy guarantee front-loaded. 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 single-parameter, read-only summary tool, the description covers the action, scope, and privacy behavior. The lack of an output schema is offset by the description's mention of approval states and check-ins, though exact return shape is still unspecified.
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%, but the single parameter event_id is intrinsically meaningful and the description reinforces it by scoping the counts 'for an event'. The description compensates adequately for the lack of schema documentation.
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?
Description is a clear verb-object construction: 'Count guest approval states and check-ins for an event across all guest pages'. It defines both the action and the resource, and the qualifier 'without returning guest identities' sets it apart from sibling tools like list_guests and get_guest.
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 'use when' or 'instead of' instructions are present, but the phrasing implies it is the aggregate, identity-free counterpart to list_guests and get_guest. The 'across all guest pages' and 'without returning guest identities' provide contextual cues, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.