Retrieve the full guest list for any Luma event by providing its event ID. Get attendee details in one call.
Get all guests for a Luma event.
Args:
event_id: The unique identifier of the event (e.g., "evt-ABC123")
Returns:
List of guests 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 full burden. It states return type ('List of guests or an error message') but discloses nothing about permissions, scope of 'all' (current vs past), pagination, or side effects. The ambiguous scope is especially relevant given the get_all_past_guests sibling.
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?
At one summary line plus args/returns, the description is compact and well-structured. The most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the essentials: action, parameter, example, return. But it remains terse and does not clarify the distinction with get_all_past_guests or any constraints on guest lists, leaving an agent to guess about behavioral boundaries.
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 property name and type with 0% coverage, so the description's argument section is the main documentation. It explains event_id as 'unique identifier of the event' and gives a concrete example format 'evt-ABC123', which adds real meaning.
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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get all guests for a Luma event' and highlights the plural 'all guests' scope, which separates it from get_guest. It does not explicitly contrast with get_all_past_guests, leaving a small sibling distinction gap.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. The description does not mention that get_all_past_guests should be used for past events or get_guest for a single guest, so an agent gets no selection help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.