my_scheduleFetch an authenticated viewer's event schedule for a B2match event; include the PDF agenda link only when include_pdf_link is true.
Fetch the authenticated viewer's event schedule. The PDF agenda URL is omitted unless include_pdf_link is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | Yes | B2match event URL, slug/euid, or numeric event id. | |
| include_pdf_link | No |
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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: the PDF agenda URL is conditionally omitted unless include_pdf_link is true, which is a non-obvious output-shaping rule.
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, no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the conditional parameter behavior follows immediately after.
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 carries the return-value burden; it states what is fetched and how the optional PDF link affects the result. Minor gap: no mention of schedule contents or empty-schedule behavior, but nothing that would cause a mis-call.
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 50%, with the undocumented parameter being include_pdf_link. The description directly compensates by explaining its effect on the returned payload, so the gap is closed rather than left to inference.
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 and resource ('Fetch the authenticated viewer's event schedule'), which is clearly a personal schedule rather than an event-wide artifact. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_agenda or list_my_events, so the agent must infer the boundary from the names.
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 qualifier 'authenticated viewer's', which signals this is the self-scoped counterpart to event-level tools such as get_agenda. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative or exclusion condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.