Retrieve detailed information for a specific event in Teamleader Focus by providing its event ID.
Get detailed information about a specific event
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The event ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not disclose error behavior, return format, or what 'detailed information' includes.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the action and resource directly, earning its place without unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter get tool, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows to supply an event ID and expect detailed information. However, with no output schema, the vague 'detailed information' leaves the return shape unspecified, and no mention is made of not-found or error scenarios.
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 schema already describes the only parameter ('The event ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('event'), and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from list_events. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 it should be used when a specific event ID is known and detailed information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_events or mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.