Create custom registration questions (text, multichoice, checkbox, radio) for your Eventbrite event to capture attendee details.
Create a registration question for an event. type: 'text', 'multichoice', 'checkbox', 'radio'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| choices | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| required | No | ||
| question_text | Yes | ||
| ticket_classes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Create a registration question' and lists valid types, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, permission needs, reversibility, or whether choices are required for certain types. The mutation aspect is implied but not elaborated.
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 only two short sentences, both of which carry useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides the allowed type values, with zero filler or redundancy.
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 tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no enums, this description is too sparse. It misses critical usage details such as how 'choices' interacts with the 'type' parameter, what 'ticket_classes' controls, and the meaning of the required flag. The existence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, but the input-oriented context is incomplete.
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. It does add useful meaning by enumerating allowed values for the 'type' parameter ('text', 'multichoice', 'checkbox', 'radio'), which the schema does not provide as an enum. However, it leaves the other five parameters unexplained, including important relationships such as 'choices' being relevant for multichoice/checkbox/radio types and the meaning of 'ticket_classes'.
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 states a specific action (Create) and a specific resource (a registration question for an event), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_event_questions, get_event_question, and delete_event_question. The verb and resource are unambiguous.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when creating a registration question for an event) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusionary conditions. It does not mention when to use canned questions, question templates, or other related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.