Retrieve detailed information about a specific event venue using its ID. Use this to access full place details when you need to verify or present venue specifics.
指定したIDの会場の詳細情報を取得します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 会場ID（UUID形式） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that detail information is retrieved, but does not mention error cases, authorization requirements, response format, or what happens when the ID does not exist. This leaves important behavioral unknowns for an agent.
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 clear sentence that directly conveys the tool's function. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key scoping detail (specified ID) is included efficiently.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail about return values, error behavior, or usage context. An agent could make a basic call, but important contextual information is absent, especially since no annotations provide any additional guarantees.
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 100%, with the id parameter described as '会場ID（UUID形式）'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation. No additional format or constraint guidance is needed beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states the action ('取得します') and the resource ('会場の詳細情報'), and specifies that it is for a particular ID. This distinguishes it from search_places, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is clear and specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's 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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like search_places or get_place_stats. There are no caveats, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.