my_availabilityFetch authenticated B2match availability for an event, returning merged free ranges per day or the full timeslot grid when detail is enabled.
Fetch authenticated availability. Default is merged free ranges per day; set detail=true for the full timeslot grid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | Yes | B2match event URL, slug/euid, or numeric event id. | |
| detail | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so that burden is lifted. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses the default return shape (merged free ranges per day) and the alternate verbose mode (full timeslot grid), plus 'authenticated' signals an auth requirement.
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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the default behavior is front-loaded before the opt-in flag. Every clause carries actionable information.
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 usefully characterizes both return modes, which is the main thing an agent needs. It is slightly incomplete on temporal scope (what window of availability is returned, and timezone handling), but covers the branching decision fully.
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 'detail' has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining what detail=true actually returns ('the full timeslot grid') versus the default, which is more than the bare boolean default=false provides.
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 ('authenticated availability'), and the 'merged free ranges per day' phrasing clarifies it is the caller's own availability rather than generic event data. It does not name any sibling (e.g. my_schedule, find_meeting_slots) to disambiguate, so it is clear but undifferentiated.
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?
The description gives explicit guidance for choosing between the two output modes (default merged ranges vs detail=true grid), which is genuine usage instruction. However it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like my_schedule or find_meeting_slots, so tool selection remains inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.