Retrieve paginated event feed data, including promotions and milestones, by page and page size. Use it to display or process events from the syntx.ai platform.
Event feed (promotions, milestones, etc.). Wraps syntx.events.list. Hits GET /api/v1/events?page=N. Returns {items, total, page, page_size}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the pagination mechanism and the exact return shape (`{items, total, page, page_size}`), which is genuinely useful. It omits auth requirements, ordering of results, and behavior at the end of the feed, so the safety/behavioral profile is only partly covered.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the feed is. The SDK wrapper reference (`syntx.events.list`) is marginally useful and the raw endpoint string partly duplicates it, but nothing is bloated.
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?
There is no output schema, so spelling out the return shape is a real contribution, and pagination is at least mentioned. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, a reader still lacks ordering, filtering limits, and page_size semantics needed to page through results correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It references `page=N` and shows `page_size` in the return payload, but never explains what page_size does, its default of 20, or the 100 cap — the agent gets no semantic guidance beyond the schema's bare types.
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?
"Event feed (promotions, milestones, etc.)" names the resource and gives concrete examples of what an event is, which is more than a restatement of the name. The list verb is implied by the tool name rather than stated, and no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for browsing the event feed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.