Retrieve complete details for any Luma event using its unique event ID. Provides event data or an error message.
Get details about a Luma event.
Args:
event_id: The unique identifier of the event (e.g., "evt-ABC123")
Returns:
The event data or an error message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input (event_id) and the return ('event data or an error message'), but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, describe error conditions, or mention any side effects. The 'Get' wording implies safety, and the error-message note adds transparency, so this is adequate but not thorough.
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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition.
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 single-parameter get operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the tool does, what identifier to pass, and what to expect back. It does not address API-specific behaviors like auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a simple read-by-id tool.
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 provides only the field name and type with no description, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains that event_id is the unique identifier and gives a concrete example format ('evt-ABC123'), adding real meaning beyond the schema. It does not restate that the parameter is required, but the schema already marks it required.
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 opens with 'Get details about a Luma event', clearly stating a specific verb and resource. It differentiates this from guest-related getters (get_guest, get_guests) by focusing on the event, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_events or the mutation tools.
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 phrasing 'Get details about a Luma event' implies this tool is for retrieving a single event's details by ID, which provides some usage context. However, it does not mention when to use list_events instead, nor does it explicitly exclude alternatives like get_guest or get_guests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.