get_agendaFetch agenda sessions and networking blocks for a B2match event; resolves the menu path automatically, or pass a path to override it.
Fetch agenda sessions and networking blocks. Resolves the menu path automatically; pass path to override.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| event | Yes | B2match event URL, slug/euid, or numeric event id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior — that the menu path is resolved automatically — but says nothing about result shape, size, or pagination for a list-style read.
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 short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the path-override caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 two-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, the returned content categories, and the override behavior. It is slightly thin on return structure and the exact scope of an 'agenda', but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 only 50%: 'event' is documented in the schema, but 'path' has no description there. The description compensates for exactly that gap by explaining 'path' is an override for an automatically resolved value, which an agent could not infer from a bare string parameter.
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 a concrete verb plus the two resources it returns ('agenda sessions and networking blocks'), which is specific enough for an agent to pick it over get_session (a single session) or get_event (event metadata). It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the way to pull an event's agenda. There is no statement of when to use it versus get_session, list_session_attendees, or my_schedule, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only guidance offered concerns the path override.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.