Retrieve complete details for a specific event, including status, schedule, venue, and capacity. Use this to verify event information before making management decisions.
Get details for a specific event including status, schedule, venue, and capacity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, schedule, venue, and capacity, but it doesn't mention whether the event must be published, whether deleted events are retrievable, or any access/permission requirements. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it lists the key detail categories. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the main detail categories and the single required parameter is obvious. However, with no annotations and no mention of error cases or access constraints, it is only minimally complete for a simple read tool.
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 not explain the event_id format (e.g., UUID, numeric, slug) or where to find it. However, with only one parameter named 'event_id', the meaning is largely self-evident from the schema, so the baseline is acceptable.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific event') and lists the detail categories: status, schedule, venue, and capacity. This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like list_organization_events and search_events, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.
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 usage: call when you need details for one specific event, identified by event_id. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_event_series or list_venue_events, but the singular 'specific event' provides enough context for an agent to select it over list/search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.