my_participationFetch authenticated participant status, activation, permissions, organisation pages, and opportunities for a single B2match event.
Fetch authenticated participant status, activation, permissions, organisation pages, and opportunities for one event.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this aggregates multiple sub-resources (status, permissions, organisation pages, opportunities) for a single event, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth failure modes or data freshness.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the scope ('for one event') placed at the end to bound the operation. The crammed list of returned facets reads slightly like an enumeration rather than prose, but nothing is superfluous.
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, enumerating the returned facets (status, activation, permissions, organisation pages, opportunities) is the key completeness contribution and it is present. For a read-only tool whose annotations already convey safety, this is close to sufficient, though auth prerequisites remain unstated.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'event' parameter is fully documented in the schema (URL, slug/euid, numeric id). The description only echoes the one-event scoping already conveyed by the required parameter, adding no extra syntax or format detail.
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 a well-defined resource set (authenticated participant status, activation, permissions, organisation pages, opportunities) scoped to one event. This distinguishes it from broader siblings like get_event and list_participants, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby 'my_*' tools such as list_my_events or my_schedule.
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 implied by the 'my_/authenticated participant' framing and the 'for one event' scope, but the description never states when to reach for this tool instead of get_participant, list_my_events, or my_schedule. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.