Get a specific event from Follow Up Boss by its unique ID. Returns the full event details for the given event ID.
Retrieve a single event by id. (GET /events/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state what happens if the id is not found (404 vs empty), whether the response is a single object or wrapped, or any rate-limit/auth behavior. For a simple read tool this is a moderate gap.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint as a compact disambiguator. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple single-resource GET with one required parameter, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left guessing about the return shape and error behavior. The extraQuery parameter is well-documented in the schema, so that gap is covered. Overall adequate but not complete.
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 50%: the 'id' parameter has no description beyond its type, and 'extraQuery' has a detailed description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The 'id' parameter's semantics are implied by the description ('by id'), but the schema already names it. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers half the parameters and the description clarifies the id's role.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a single event'), and the identifier ('by id'). It also includes the HTTP endpoint (GET /events/{id}), which disambiguates it from sibling tools like list_events, get_call, and get_task. This is a clear, distinct purpose.
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 implies usage: call this when you need one event by its id, versus list_events for multiple events. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., event must exist, id required). The context is clear but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.