get_eventRetrieve details for a specific Circle community event by its event ID, optionally using a named private account.
Get Event. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| event_id | Yes | Event ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what is returned, whether the read is scoped to the account credential, or error behavior for unknown event IDs.
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?
Two short fragments with no padding, so it is certainly concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity is achieved by omitting content rather than by economy, leaving the structure technically clean but uninformative.
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 simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what an event object represents or where the event_id comes from. Given no output schema exists, the description is the only place a return-shape hint could live, and it supplies none.
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%, so both parameters are already documented — including the useful 'account selects credentials, not a remote community ID' note in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 is essentially a restatement of the title 'Get Event' plus the vague filler 'Reads community data.' It does not distinguish this tool from the many other getters in the sibling list (get_member, get_post, get_space, get_comment), and 'community data' tells the agent nothing about what an event record contains.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_events, update_event, delete_event, or list_event_attendees. No prerequisites, no mention of the required event_id being sourced from a prior list call. The agent gets zero routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.