eventor-mcp

by bjorges

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_events

List Eventor events within a date range and optionally filter by organisation IDs to find competitions or activities.

Instructions

List events (competitions/activities) from Eventor within a date range.

Args: from_date: Start date, format YYYY-MM-DD. to_date: End date, format YYYY-MM-DD. organisation_ids: Optional comma-separated Eventor organisation id(s) to filter by (a club or district). Omit for all events in range.

Requires EVENTOR_API_KEY (a club API key from Eventor -> Klubben -> Klubbinnstillinger).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to_date`	Yes
`from_date`	Yes
`organisation_ids`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the auth requirement (EVENTOR_API_KEY, including where to get it) and read-only intent via 'List'. It stops short of disclosing pagination, rate limits, or result-size behavior, which matters for a date-range listing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block that earns its place given the zero schema coverage. The auth note is slightly separated from the invocation context but overall tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Auth, date format, and filter semantics are all covered, leaving only secondary operational details (pagination/limits) absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: date format YYYY-MM-DD for both bounds, organisation_ids as optional comma-separated club/district ids, and 'omit for all events'. It only misses edge details like inclusivity of the date bounds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List events (competitions/activities) from Eventor') plus the scoping dimension (a date range). Sibling tools operate on clearly different resources (entries, organisations, classes), so an agent can route without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clarifies that omitting organisation_ids returns all events in range, which is useful conditional behavior, but it never states when to choose this tool over siblings or any preconditions beyond the generic API key. Usage is implied rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server