Find project events within a date range; each match includes the rule indexes that triggered and links to supporting evidence.
Find events associated by explicit project rules; each match explains its rule indexes and links to evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| fidelity | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| provenance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying each match exposes rule indexes and evidence links, but it does not address pagination, cursor/limit behavior, or what 'explicit project rules' means operationally.
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 a single purposeful sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action before the output detail. It could be slightly clearer in phrasing, but it is appropriately concise for its size.
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?
A 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions requires far more context than this. The single sentence gives a useful output hint but leaves required date-range semantics, filtering options, pagination, and sibling-tool selection entirely undocumented.
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%, and the description does not compensate. It never clarifies the meaning of required parameters like project_id, start, and end, nor optional filters like kind, source_id, profile, fidelity, or provenance. The agent is left to infer all parameter semantics from bare property names.
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 ('Find') and resource ('events') and adds distinctive detail: matches explain their rule indexes and link to evidence. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like timeline, search, or query, so it stops just short of a top score.
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 about when to use this tool versus related tools such as timeline, search, or query. The phrasing implies a project-rule-focused lookup, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.