EventMatey Event Discovery
Server Details
Find public EventMatey events that organisers have approved for AI discovery.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: get details for a specific event, search by keyword, or search nearby. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_event, search_events_by, search_events_nearby) with no mixing of styles.
Three tools is on the low side for an event discovery server, but it covers basic search and details. The count is borderline acceptable.
Missing essential operations like browsing events without search, listing categories, or user interactions. The surface is significantly incomplete for the domain.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_event_detailsAInspect
Get fuller public details for one discoverable EventMatey event, including the canonical hosted booking URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | EventMatey event UUID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry weight. It mentions 'fuller public details' and booking URL, implying read-only, but doesn't disclose permissions, error conditions, or that the event must be 'discoverable' (though that word is used). Adequate but not detailed.
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?
Single sentence, 16 words, directly conveys purpose and key output. No redundancy.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, description covers purpose and key return value. Could mention response structure or limitations, but minimal completeness is achieved.
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% for the single parameter, with description 'EventMatey event UUID' and pattern/format. Description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description specifies verb 'Get' and object 'fuller public details for one discoverable EventMatey event', plus unique output 'canonical hosted booking URL'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling search tools by targeting a single event via ID.
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?
Implied usage: use after obtaining an event_id (e.g., from sibling search tools). No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions, but context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_events_by_keywordAInspect
Search public EventMatey events by keyword, optional UK location text, date range, categories, and price range. Returns only published and bookable events that the organiser has enabled for AI discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of events to return | |
| keyword | Yes | Keyword or phrase to search for, such as baking class or live music | |
| end_date | No | Optional inclusive end date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| categories | No | Optional category or tag filters | |
| start_date | No | Optional inclusive start date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| location_text | No | Optional UK location hint such as Bristol, Manchester, or London | |
| max_price_gbp | No | Optional maximum price in GBP | |
| min_price_gbp | No | Optional minimum price in GBP |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are limited to published, bookable events enabled for AI discovery. However, it lacks details on pagination, authentication, rate limits, or result ordering, which would be useful for an agent.
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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence captures the action and filters, second adds a key constraint. Information is front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the main behavior and filters. However, it lacks details on search logic (e.g., exact vs fuzzy match), default ordering, and explicit contrast with sibling tools, leaving room for slight improvement.
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%, so parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no new semantic value beyond restating that filters are optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'public EventMatey events', specifies filtering options (keyword, location, date range, categories, price range), and adds a return constraint (published, bookable, AI-discovery-enabled). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event_details and search_events_nearby.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching events by keyword with optional filters) and implies that it is not for location-proximity searches, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_events_nearbyAInspect
Search EventMatey events by location. The current v1 implementation uses location_text plus date/category/price filters. Latitude/longitude and radius are accepted for forward compatibility but are not yet used for true distance search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of events to return | |
| end_date | No | Optional inclusive end date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| latitude | No | Optional latitude for future geo-capable search | |
| longitude | No | Optional longitude for future geo-capable search | |
| radius_km | No | Optional search radius in kilometres for future geo-capable search | |
| categories | No | Optional category or tag filters | |
| start_date | No | Optional inclusive start date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| location_text | No | Use this for the current v1 location search, such as Bristol or Leeds | |
| max_price_gbp | No | Optional maximum price in GBP | |
| min_price_gbp | No | Optional minimum price in GBP |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently discloses that latitude/longitude and radius are accepted but not yet functional for true distance search. This avoids misleading the agent about current capabilities, which is crucial given no annotations are provided.
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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. The main purpose and key behavioral note are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations or output schema), the description covers purpose, current implementation, and parameter usage. It lacks details on return format or ordering, but the core information for agent selection and invocation is present.
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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying which parameters are currently effective (location_text, dates, categories, prices) versus those for future compatibility (lat/lon/radius), guiding parameter selection.
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 clearly states 'Search EventMatey events by location,' specifying the primary function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_event_details, search_events_by_keyword) by focusing on location-based search with additional filters.
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 indicates that the v1 implementation uses location_text plus date/category/price filters, and that lat/lon are for future use. This implies when to use this tool (location-based queries) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!