get_organisationFetch an organisation or participation page for a B2match event using event and participation_id. Automatically resolves the menu path; pass a path to override.
Fetch an organisation/participation page. 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. | |
| participation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait absent from structured fields: automatic menu-path resolution with an explicit override. It stops short of auth requirements, failure modes, or what happens when resolution fails.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the path behavior. Every clause carries information, though the 'organisation/participation page' phrase trades precision for brevity.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description would ideally hint at what is returned, yet it does not. With 33% schema coverage and no explanation of why a participation_id is required to fetch an organisation, meaningful gaps remain for a three-parameter tool, though the annotations carry the safety dimension.
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 33%: only 'event' is described in the schema, while 'participation_id' is undocumented everywhere. The description explains that 'path' is an override for auto-resolution, adding intent beyond the bare string type, but gives no syntax or format for the path and says nothing about participation_id.
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 clear verb ('Fetch') plus resource ('organisation/participation page'), and the name/title line up with the sibling list_organisations by being the singular fetch. However, the pairing of 'organisation/participation page' is ambiguous — an agent can't tell whether the primary resource is an organisation or a participation, nor how this differs from get_participant.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_organisations or get_participant. The only conditional statement is about the path override, which is a parameter mechanic rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.