Retrieve adventure log events from the DM20 Protocol server. Filter by type, search content, or set limits to access campaign history.
Get events from the adventure log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of events to return | |
| event_type | No | Filter by event type | |
| search | No | Search events by title/description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get events' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the events come in. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'events' are, what fields they contain, how they're ordered, or what the return structure looks like. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.
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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (limit, event_type, search). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get events from the adventure log' clearly states the action (get) and resource (events from adventure log), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_sessions' or 'get_campaign_info'. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all events, recent events, or filtered events.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_sessions' (which might retrieve session-specific events) or 'list_quests' (which might overlap with quest events). There's no context about prerequisites or when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.