venue_info
Venue metadata plus how many times Phish has played there.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| venue | Yes |
good_wook
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns metadata and a play count but does not mention whether it is read-only, required permissions, error handling for unknown venues, or the structure of the output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is more of a phrase than a structured explanation. It front-loads the purpose but lacks any structure or additional details. Every word earns its place, but it could be slightly expanded for clarity.
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 has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what metadata is returned, the return format, or how the play count is determined. The agent lacks information to fully understand or use the tool.
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?
The input schema has a single required parameter 'venue' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not clarify what the parameter expects (e.g., venue name, ID, format, case sensitivity), leaving the agent uninformed about how to provide valid input.
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 a count of Phish performances at that venue, which is a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_setlist or jam_chart by focusing on venue-level data. However, 'venue metadata' is somewhat vague, missing what specific metadata is included.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. The description simply states functionality without context for selection.
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.