Fetch an Eventbrite category by ID to classify events by vertical, such as Music or Endurance.
Get a category by ID.
ENDPOINT: GET /categories/{id}/
Category is an overarching category that an event falls into (vertical). Examples: Music, Endurance.
AUTHENTICATION: Requires: Authorization: Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category_id | Yes | Category ID (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the HTTP endpoint and the required Bearer token authentication, which the schema does not. However, it says nothing about error behavior (missing ID), the shape of the returned category, or pagination/side effects, leaving real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Front-loaded with the operation, then scoped with endpoint, domain definition, and auth in labeled blocks. Every block earns its place; the category definition is arguably extra but aids disambiguation from get_subcategory.
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 read with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, auth requirement, and entity meaning, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is its relationship to get_subcategory and list_categories, which the sibling list makes relevant.
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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that lookup is by ID and adds no format, constraint, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a category by ID') and adds a definition of what a category is (vertical: Music, Endurance), which helps distinguish it from the similarly-named get_subcategory and list_categories. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.
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 'by ID' phrasing implies a direct-lookup use case, but there is no statement of when to use this versus list_categories (discovery) or get_subcategory (child entity). Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.