get_eventReturns a single clustered event by ID. Use include_incidents=true to also
retrieve all incidents that belong to this event cluster.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Event UUID | |
| include_incidents | No | Include linked incidents in the response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to establish safety. The description adds functional detail about include_incidents but no additional behavioral traits such as error cases, pagination, or response structure beyond what the annotation implies.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is stated first, and the optional parameter behavior is a natural addendum.
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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: the ID identifies the event, and the optional flag controls incident inclusion. It does not describe the full response shape, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches the include_incidents parameter by clarifying that setting it to true retrieves 'all incidents that belong to this event cluster,' which is more specific than the schema's generic 'Include linked incidents in the response.'
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a single clustered event by ID.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_events and get_incident by emphasizing the clustered-event concept and the optional linked-incidents retrieval.
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 conveys clear usage context: use this tool when you need a single event by its ID, optionally including its linked incidents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-event scoping is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over list-style siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions are detailed enough to separate declaration lookups, hazard history, incidents, events, and gauges. A couple of pairs could still be confused at first glance, such as declarations_by_point vs hazard_history_by_point or list_events vs list_incidents, but the descriptions resolve the boundaries.
The naming largely follows a clear get_/list_ convention for single resources versus collections, with lookup-style names like declarations_by_point and declarations_by_postcode. Minor deviations such as incident_snapshot, nearby_incidents, and the singular declaration_by_agrn prevent a perfect score.
19 tools is on the heavier side, but the count is justified by the broad domain covering current incidents, historical incidents, clustered events, declarations, river gauges, hazard history, schema discovery, attribution, and feed health. Each tool appears to earn its place, though the set is larger than the ideal 3-15 range for a tightly scoped server.
The surface is remarkably complete for a read-only emergency/disaster data API: current and historical incidents, event clustering, incident snapshots, nearby queries, declaration lookups by multiple keys, gauge readings and summaries, hazard history, schema enums, attribution, and source feed status are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.