list_my_eventsList events the logged-in viewer has joined and return their IDs or slugs for use as the event argument in other tools. Requires login; use get_event for a single public event.
List events the logged-in viewer has joined, with ids/slugs usable as the event argument elsewhere. Requires login; use get_event for any single public event instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the login requirement and the fact that returned ids/slugs are reusable as the event argument elsewhere. It doesn't describe volume, ordering, or pagination of the result set.
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, zero filler, with the core scope stated first and the alternative routing second.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does tell the agent what the ids/slugs are good for, but it omits the broader shape of each event entry and any pagination behavior. Complete enough to call correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description implicitly confirms there is no filtering input by framing it as 'events the viewer has joined'. Nothing further is needed.
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?
Specific verb (list) plus scoped resource (events the logged-in viewer has joined), and it explicitly contrasts with get_event for single public events. An agent can distinguish this from my_participation or get_event without opening any schema.
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?
States the prerequisite (requires login) and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it (get_event for any single public event). Routing is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.