get_eventFetch public event details by URL, slug, or ID, including dates, registration window, login methods, and navigation.
Fetch public event metadata, dates, registration window, login methods, and navigation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that only public event data is returned, not the caller's private participation — but nothing about caching, auth requirements, or failure modes for an invalid event identifier.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, listing returned content without filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
Because no output schema exists, the description must carry return-value information, and it does by enumerating the fetched fields. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g., that the event must exist or be accessible) or how it relates to the many sibling event-scoped tools.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'event' accepts a URL, slug/euid, or numeric id. The description adds nothing about accepted identifier forms, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (public event metadata) and enumerates the content returned: dates, registration window, login methods, navigation. The word 'public' implicitly separates it from user-scoped siblings like list_my_events or my_participation, though it never names them.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the entry point for resolving an event before calling the more specific sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.