get_setlist
Phish setlist for a given date (YYYY-MM-DD).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| include_related | No |
good_wook
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive effects, or authentication needs. It only states the result type.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extra words. Every part is necessary.
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?
With two parameters undocumented, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially regarding the optional include_related parameter.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'date' or 'include_related', leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a Phish setlist for a given date in YYYY-MM-DD format. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like search_shows or random_show.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific date is known, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like search_shows or latest_show.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: setlist retrieval, jam chart, show search, song stats, venue info, etc. No overlap or ambiguity among the 11 tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use consistent snake_case with descriptive verb_noun patterns (e.g., 'get_setlist', 'search_shows', 'song_history'). The outlier 'ping' is a standard health check name.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—covering setlist, song, venue, and show operations without clutter or sparsity.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core Phish show information comprehensively: setlists, song stats, jam charts, venue data, and show search. Minor gaps (e.g., absence of review or attendance tools) are acceptable.