FrontRowTickets.com MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is the disclosure that the Catalog API cannot expose section-level price bands and only totals plus starting price come back. That is a genuinely useful expectation-setting limitation not implied by the annotations.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the API limitation placed second. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so partially by explaining that only totals and a starting price are returned and that section-level bands are unavailable. It stops short of defining what "totals" comprises or whether unavailable/low-inventory events are represented, which would fully close the gap.

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 event_id, quantity, and max_price are already documented in the schema, including that quantity is informational and max_price is a starting-price cutoff. The description adds only a general statement about returned price granularity and does not clarify how quantity or max_price affect results, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear resource+outcome phrasing ("Ticket availability and starting price for one event"), so an agent immediately knows it retrieves availability data for a single event. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against siblings like get_event or get_deals, so the scope boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites beyond the schema's event_id hint, and no mention of when to prefer get_deals or get_event instead. "For one event" implies a single-event lookup after obtaining an ID, but the agent must infer that entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are the cheapest available (implying price-ascending selection and an availability constraint), which is useful, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how many deals are returned.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core selection criterion (cheapest events under a price cap) before the optional filters. Every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter read-only query with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers what it does and its filters adequately. There is no output schema, so the absence of return-format detail is tolerable, though it could mention result count or pagination behavior.

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 100%, with city, date_from, date_to, and max_price all documented including formats and the exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description restates the same three filters and adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (events) and a clear selection criterion (cheapest available under a price cap), so an agent knows this is a budget-oriented event lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_events or get_availability, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 notes optional city and date filters but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative such as search_events for non-price-driven lookups. The agent must guess which sibling to route to.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned data in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the core purpose and follows with a compact field list. No filler, no repetition of the name or annotations.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, listing the returned fields is a meaningful completeness contribution. The remaining gap is routing: nothing helps the agent choose this over get_availability, which sounds like it covers overlapping data.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented ('Event ID from search_events'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for event_id, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full details for one event') and enumerates the returned fields (venue, date, ticket count, price range, sections). It is clear about what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_availability, whose scope ('sections available') it partially overlaps.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one event' signals a single-record lookup as opposed to search_events' multi-record listing, and the schema hints the id comes from search_events. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_availability or get_deals, and no exclusions stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful return-content signal (ticket counts, starting prices), but says nothing about pagination, the limit ceiling, or result caps, which matters for a search tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: capability first, return payload second. Nothing redundant or misplaced.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states what comes back, and it covers the primary search axes. The gap is the unaddressed limit/pagination behavior for a 6-parameter, zero-required 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 67% and the description maps its wording onto query, city, date range and category, but adds no meaning beyond the schema (no matching semantics for 'text', no inclusivity note for the date range). The limit parameter is untouched in both places, so this is baseline adequate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search ticket inventory) with the dimensions it covers and what it returns. Clear enough to distinguish from get_event/get_availability/get_deals by intent, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 enumerates the search dimensions but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to the sibling tools (get_event, get_deals, get_availability). An agent must infer when a broad search beats a targeted lookup.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.