Retrieve protection event summaries with filters for state, count, and sort order. Use this read-only tool to monitor payment protection activity and paginate through results.
Lists protection events. Returns event summaries. This tool ONLY reads data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of events to return | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| state | No | Filter events by state | |
| since_token | No | Pagination token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces that this tool only reads data, but does not add further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'protection event'). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 two sentences, zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then emphasizes the read-only nature. Perfectly concise.
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 no output schema and four optional parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'event summaries' contain, how pagination works (since_token), or if there are any default sort orders. It is adequate but not thorough.
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%: all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 (lists), the resource (protection events), and explicitly labels it as read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spreedly_event_list (general events) and spreedly_protection_show_event (single event details).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spreedly_event_list, spreedly_protection_show_event). There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.