Fetch a Garmin Connect calendar event by its numeric ID to view details; returns a 404 error if the ID is missing.
GETs /calendar-service/event/{id}; a missing id is a 404 GarminHttpError
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | Yes | Numeric id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds a concrete error behavior (missing id yields 404 GarminHttpError), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not mention auth, rate limits, or response shape.
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 one compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-separated error clause is efficient, though the terse endpoint syntax is slightly opaque.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the endpoint and one error condition. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe the return shape or at least what the event object contains, which it omits.
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 100% and the single eventId parameter is documented as 'Numeric id'. The description reinforces the id's role in the path and mentions a missing id error, but adds no format or type details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 names the HTTP method and exact endpoint path for retrieving a calendar event by id, which is clear and specific. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_shared_calendar_event or list_calendar_events, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_calendar_events or get_shared_calendar_event. It only notes a failure mode, which is not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.