Fetch the full detail of one CultureLib cultural event by its id (the slug returned by search): description, venue, dates, and all live reseller offers with prices, freshness and booking links, as a single citable document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The event id (slug) returned by search |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (description, venue, dates, offers, prices, freshness, booking links) and notes it returns 'a single citable document'. It implies read-only operation without side effects. Missing details like required permissions or rate limits, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently transparent.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input, and output. Every part is informative: the verb, the resource, the source of the ID, and the contents of the return document. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (including specific data types), and where the parameter comes from. No gaps remain for correct invocation.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for one parameter 'id'. The description adds context by stating the id is 'the slug returned by search', which is not in the schema's description. This helps the agent understand the source and format of the parameter, adding value beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states the tool fetches full details of a CultureLib cultural event by ID, listing specific fields (description, venue, dates, offers with prices, freshness, booking links) and specifying the ID comes from search. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search (which returns lists) and compare_offers (which compares).
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 clarifies that the ID is the slug returned by 'search', indicating a typical workflow: search first, then fetch. It implies this tool is for retrieving a single event's full detail, contrasting with siblings like search or whats_on. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other scenarios.
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 have distinct purposes, but 'fetch' and 'get_show' both return full event details with offers, causing potential confusion. 'search' and 'search_shows' are similar but differentiated by aggregation level.
Naming mixes verb_noun (compare_offers, find_venues), bare verbs (fetch, search), and a contraction (whats_on). Inconsistent pattern may confuse agents.
8 tools is well-scoped for a cultural events discovery service, covering search, details, venues, price comparison, and metadata without being overwhelming.
Core workflows (search, detail, venue lookup, price comparison, what's-on) are covered. Minor gaps like filtering by category or venue-specific show listings are missing but not critical.
