Retrieve conferences the logged-in CMT user participates in, including IDs, names, dates, locations, and URL segment names. Set refresh to true for current data.
List conferences the logged-in CMT user participates in (id, name, UrlSegmentName, dates, location).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It does not state that authentication is required, what the response looks like, or — most tellingly — what the cache-affecting `refresh` flag does; the description never alludes to any caching behavior at all.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical field list is somewhat wasted effort since an output schema already exists, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
The output schema means return values need not be described, so the parenthetical field enumeration is redundant. What is missing is the authentication requirement and the meaning of `refresh`, both of which an agent needs to invoke this correctly.
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?
There is one parameter (`refresh`) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and here it adds no semantics for the only input the tool takes.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List conferences") plus a clear scope restriction: only those the logged-in CMT user participates in. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling search_conferences, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which to pick.
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 phrase "the logged-in CMT user participates in" implicitly separates this from a general conference search, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of search_conferences as the alternative, and no stated prerequisites such as being authenticated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.