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 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: get_event_details retrieves details for a specific event, search_events_by_keyword enables keyword-based search, and search_events_nearby is location-focused. No overlap in primary functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_event_details, search_events_by_keyword, search_events_nearby. The verbs (get, search) are appropriate for the actions and are uniformly used.
Three tools is an appropriate and well-scoped set for an event discovery service, covering detail retrieval and two distinct search methods without unnecessary redundancy.
Core discovery operations are covered: keyword search, location search, and event details. Minor gap is absence of a tool to list available filter options (e.g., categories), but overall surface is sufficient for typical use cases.
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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include 'fuller public details' and a booking URL, but does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or data limits.
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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without 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?
Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but could be improved by listing the types of details returned or covering error cases.
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 already fully describes the single parameter (event_id as a UUID), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. 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 tool fetches 'fuller public details for one discoverable EventMatey event' including the booking URL. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on a single event's details.
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 implies this tool is used after discovering an event via search tools, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions.
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?
Discloses that only published, bookable events enabled for AI discovery are returned, which adds value beyond schema. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Does not cover rate limits or result ordering.
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 front-loaded purpose. No redundant information.
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?
Covers core functionality and return filter. Lacks pagination or ordering details, but limit parameter is in schema. Adequate for a search tool.
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 fully documented. Description reiterates parameter types without adding new meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states the tool searches public EventMatey events by keyword with optional filters. Distinguishes from sibling tools 'search_events_nearby' (location-based) and 'get_event_details' (specific event info).
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?
Implies usage for keyword-based searching but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use 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?
Discloses that lat/lon/radius are accepted but not used in v1, making the tool's current limitations transparent. Without annotations, this is valuable behavioral context.
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 with no redundancy: first states core function, second explains limitations and future plans. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
Covers essential behavior and limitations. Lacks mention of result format or pagination, but this is partly covered by the 'limit' parameter in schema. Sufficient for a simple search tool with good schema coverage.
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?
Adds meaningful context beyond schema descriptions, e.g., clarifying that location_text is the primary parameter for v1 and that geospatial parameters are forward-compatible placeholders.
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?
Clearly states the tool searches events by location, distinguishing itself from siblings like search_events_by_keyword which likely uses different criteria.
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?
Does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this vs alternatives. The 'v1 implementation' hint guides usage but lacks direct when/when-not guidance.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceWraps PredictHQ Events API to enable AI agents to query global event data through natural language, part of Pipeworx gateway.7MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceDiscovers events from Luma's public feed and subscribed calendars, with distance filtering, category search, and ICS export. No API key required for basic discovery.4MIT
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceProvides access to event data from the Eventfinda API, allowing AI agents to search for events by location and retrieve detailed information including descriptions, dates, addresses, and ticket details.17
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceEnables discovery and submission of AI community events, hackathons, and meetups through search by location, type, and date range, plus newsletter subscription capabilities.