Creates a recurring event schedule for an Eventbrite event series by applying an iCalendar RRULE and setting occurrence duration.
Create a recurring event schedule. recurrence_rule: iCalendar RRULE format (e.g. 'FREQ=WEEKLY;COUNT=10')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_series_id | Yes | ||
| recurrence_rule | Yes | ||
| occurrence_duration_seconds | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a schedule is created. It does not mention prerequisites such as an existing event series, side effects, validation constraints, or whether the operation is idempotent or destructive.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is a useful parameter hint, though it is placed awkwardly rather than in a structured parameter section.
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 creation tool with three required parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is not complete: it provides no context on how event_series_id is obtained, how occurrence_duration_seconds relates to the schedule, or what constitutes a valid recurrence rule beyond the example.
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 the schema, but it only explains recurrence_rule with an iCalendar RRULE example. The required event_series_id and occurrence_duration_seconds parameters receive no semantic explanation.
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 resource ('recurring event schedule'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from create_event by the recurring-schedule framing, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 given on when to use this tool instead of create_event, update_event, or other scheduling/event tools. The recurrence wording implies its niche, but the description leaves the selection decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.