venue_info
Venue metadata plus how many times Goose has played there.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| venue | Yes |
good_honker
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions metadata and play count but omits details like what metadata fields are included, error handling, or if the tool is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It fails to explain input format or output details, which an agent would need for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the 'venue' parameter. It does not clarify valid values, format, or how to specify the venue (e.g., exact name, partial match).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns venue metadata and the number of times Goose has played there. It distinguishes from siblings like album_info or song_history, which focus on other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The description lacks context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the band's data: albums, appearances, setlists, jams, shows, songs, venues, etc. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the snake_case convention (e.g., album_info, get_setlist, song_stats). The naming is descriptive and consistently uses nouns or verb_noun patterns without mixing styles.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the server is well-scoped for a band discography/event database. Each tool serves a clear purpose and the count is balanced—neither too few nor excessive.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all key operations: searching shows, retrieving setlists, accessing song history and stats, managing albums, venues, jams, appearances, and even health checks. There are no obvious gaps in covering the band's data lifecycle.