Retrieve sign-ups created by the authenticated SignUpGenius user, including active and expired. Filter client-side by end date to view only active sign-ups.
List sign-ups created by the authenticated user. In session mode this returns the full list (active + expired) — filter on enddate client-side if you need only active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and open-world characteristics, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: in session mode the result includes both active and expired entries, requiring client-side enddate filtering. This is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the one non-obvious behavioral caveat. No filler.
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 params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one thing an agent could not infer: that the 'active' name is misleading in session mode. It could be more complete by naming the sibling tools that return expired/all lists.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter detail the description needs to add.
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+resource ('List sign-ups created by the authenticated user') with a clear owner scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related siblings list_created_expired and list_created_all, though the 'active' framing and the enddate note hint at the distinction.
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?
It gives a conditional ('if you need only active') but as a client-side workaround rather than routing the agent to the sibling tools (list_created_all, list_created_expired). Usage is implied rather than made explicit against alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.