LONG Events
Server Details
Search events, conference weeks, cities, venues and artist schedules via remote MCP.
- 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 3.8/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action: cities, venues, events, event weeks, schedules, current play, artists, organizers. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar searches are clearly separated by entity type.
Most tool names follow a consistent 'get_<noun>' or 'search_<noun>' pattern in snake_case. The only minor inconsistency is 'get_now_playing' which uses a gerund phrase instead of a simple noun, but the overall pattern is clear.
13 tools is well-scoped for an event data API. Each tool covers a necessary read operation without overcomplicating the surface. The count balances discoverability and functionality.
The tool set covers all major read operations for the events domain: listing, details, schedules, real-time updates, and searches across multiple entity types. Missing write operations or event tagging are minor gaps that don't hinder the core purpose.
Available Tools
13 toolsget_citiesAInspect
List cities that have events, with statistics like total events and recent activity. Use this to help users discover active event scenes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of cities to return | |
| country | No | Filter by country name | |
| min_events | No | Minimum number of total events |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a read-only 'list' operation and hints at output content (statistics). No destructive behavior is indicated, which is adequate for this 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 concise sentences, each adding value: first states what the tool does, second gives a usage recommendation. No wasted 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 no output schema, the description adequately hints at return data (statistics, recent activity). Parameters are fully described in schema. Lacks pagination details but limit parameter covers that.
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 description adds limited value beyond schema. The description implies output statistics but doesn't elaborate on parameters. 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 it lists cities with events and provides statistics, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on events, venues, or artists. The verb 'list' and resource 'cities' are specific.
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 says to 'use this to help users discover active event scenes,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from siblings like get_venues or search_events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_detailsBInspect
Get full details for a specific event by its ID. Returns complete information including description, venue details, and ticket URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | The UUID of the event to retrieve |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states what is returned but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter) and the description specifies the main return categories (description, venue, ticket URL). While no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for basic retrieval. Minor gap: does not detail venue fields or response structure, but adequate for the task.
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% with a clear description ('The UUID of the event to retrieve'). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter adequately.
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 action (Get full details), the resource (a specific event by ID), and lists the key information returned (description, venue details, ticket URL). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event_schedule or search_events.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple event-related siblings (e.g., get_event_schedule, search_events, get_event_week_details), the agent would benefit from explicit context on when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_scheduleAInspect
Get the DJ/artist schedule for a festival or party event. Returns set times, stages, and artists. Use this to answer questions like 'What time does ANOTR play?' or 'What's happening at AYA on New Year's Eve?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | Filter by stage name | |
| artist | No | Search for specific artist in the schedule | |
| event_id | No | UUID of the event to get schedule for | |
| event_name | No | Name of the event to search for (if event_id not known) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation and lists return fields, but no annotations are provided. It does not disclose potential limits, error conditions, or detailed output structure beyond 'set times, stages, and artists'.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes concrete examples. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 no output schema, the description provides a general idea of returned data but lacks detail on structure (e.g., time format, ordering, default behavior when no filters are applied). Adequate but not fully complete for a schedule 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 the description adds marginal value. It mentions using event_id vs event_name and provides examples, but does not significantly elaborate beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 retrieves DJ/artist schedules for festivals or parties, specifying returned data (set times, stages, artists). It provides example queries, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_event_details or search_events.
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 gives example questions, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings, which would be beneficial for an agent choosing between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_week_citiesAInspect
List cities that have upcoming event weeks with their counts. Use this to discover where major conferences are happening.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation by stating it 'lists' data, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval 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?
The description consists of two concise sentences. The first explains what the tool does, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words or details.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the return value (cities with counts) and the purpose. It does not cover potential pagination or ordering, but for a straightforward list tool, this is acceptable.
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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not mislead and the schema is complete.
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 lists cities with upcoming event weeks and their counts, and provides a specific use case for discovering major conferences. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like get_cities (which likely lists cities without event context) and get_event_weeks (which focuses on weeks rather than cities).
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 includes explicit guidance to 'use this to discover where major conferences are happening,' giving a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to siblings, which would elevate it further.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_week_detailsAInspect
Get full details for a conference week including all its side events. Use this to help users see everything happening during a major conference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | The slug of the event week (alternative to week_id) | |
| week_id | No | The UUID of the event week to retrieve | |
| event_week_id | No | Alias for week_id |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only describes purpose, not behavioral traits like auth needs, rate limits, or that it's a read operation.
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, front-loaded with action and resource. No filler; every word adds value.
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?
No output schema and three optional params. Description mentions details and side events but doesn't clarify that at least one parameter must be provided, nor what the response structure is.
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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 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?
Clearly states it retrieves full details for a conference week including side events. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_event_weeks which likely lists weeks, not 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?
Implies usage context ('help users see everything happening during a major conference') but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like get_event_weeks for browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_weeksAInspect
List upcoming conference weeks, festivals, and multi-day event series (like ETH Denver, Devconnect, Token2049). Use this to help users plan trips around major conferences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by tag (e.g., 'crypto', 'music', 'tech') | |
| city | No | Filter by city name | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of event weeks to return | |
| country | No | Filter by country name | |
| include_past | No | Include past event weeks (default false) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists 'upcoming' events by default (implied by 'include_past' defaulting to false). However, it does not describe the output structure, pagination, or any side effects. This is adequate for a read-only list tool but lacks detail on return format.
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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the function with examples, and the second provides the use case. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not fully compensate. It does not mention filtering options (tag, city, country) nor the response structure. While the schema provides parameter details, the description could summarize the output to improve completeness. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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%, so the existing schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional explanation of parameters beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and there is no extra value added.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'upcoming conference weeks, festivals, and multi-day event series', and provides concrete examples (ETH Denver, Devconnect, Token2049). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_event_details' and 'search_event_weeks' by emphasizing trip planning around major conferences.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to help users plan trips around major conferences.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings like 'search_event_weeks', which could be used for broader event searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_event_week_tagsAInspect
List all tags used in event weeks with their counts. Use this to discover types of conferences available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently states it lists tags with counts, a read operation with no side effects. Lacks details on ordering or limits but adequate for simple listing.
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 front-load the purpose and usage. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description fully covers what the tool does and why to use it. Complete for its scope.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info, and it omits nothing relevant.
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 it lists all tags used in event weeks with their counts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tags, a unique entity not mentioned in other sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly advises to use for discovering types of conferences available, providing clear context. While it doesn't list alternatives, the guidance is specific and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_now_playingAInspect
Get what's currently playing at festival/party events. Returns live stage information with current artists. Use this to answer 'What's on now?' or 'Who's playing right now at AYA?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Filter by city | |
| event_id | No | Filter to specific event | |
| event_week_id | No | Filter to specific event week/festival |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns 'live stage information with current artists' but does not mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. For a read operation, indicating non-destructiveness would add value.
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 only two sentences: one stating the purpose and one with example usage. It is front-loaded and every word adds value. No unnecessary repetition or verbosity.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return structure more fully. It mentions 'live stage information with current artists' but does not clarify if multiple events are returned, how to interpret results, or default behavior when no filters are provided. More detail is needed for complete understanding.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's filter descriptions. Baseline is 3, and since no extra semantic value is provided, the score remains 3.
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 retrieves current playing information at festival/party events, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It provides example questions ('What's on now?', 'Who's playing right now at AYA?') that differentiate it from sibling tools like get_event_schedule, which is for scheduled events rather than live now.
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 explicitly gives example queries that indicate when to use the tool (for asking about currently playing events). It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is clear from the phrasing 'currently playing' vs. schedule. More explicit exclusions would raise the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_venuesAInspect
List venues in a city with their event history. Use this to help users find popular venues or discover new spots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City name to search venues in | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of venues to return |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present; description mentions event history but does not specify details like auth needs, rate limits, or whether the operation 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage without redundancy.
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 simple listing tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and usage context adequately.
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%; description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema definitions for the two parameters.
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 lists venues in a city with event history, distinguishing it from siblings like search_events or get_cities.
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?
Provides a clear use case (finding popular venues or new spots) but does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_artistsAInspect
Search for artist set times across all events. Use this to find when and where a specific artist is playing. Great for answering 'When does Bonobo play?' or 'Where can I see Tale of Us?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Filter by city | |
| end_date | No | End date filter (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| start_date | No | Start date filter (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| artist_name | Yes | Artist name to search for |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'set times across all events' but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether results are past/future events. Adequate but lacks detail.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, uses concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
No output schema, so return format is unclear. Description mentions 'set times' but doesn't specify fields returned (e.g., time, venue). Adequate for a simple search tool with good sibling context, but could be more complete.
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% (all 4 parameters described in schema). Description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only reuses the concept of filtering and examples. 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Search' and resource 'artist set times across all events', with concrete examples like 'Bonobo' and 'Tale of Us'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_events by specifying artist focus.
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?
Explicitly states use case: 'find when and where a specific artist is playing' with example questions. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context implies it's the primary tool for artist queries. Good but not perfect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_eventsAInspect
Search for events near a location with optional filters. Returns events with name, venue, date, category, and ticket URL. Use this to help users find events in a city or near coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City name like 'Berlin', 'New York', 'London' | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of events to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| country | No | Country name to filter by | |
| category | No | Event category like 'electronic', 'rock', 'tech', 'crypto' | |
| end_date | No | End date filter in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| latitude | No | Latitude for location-based search | |
| longitude | No | Longitude for location-based search | |
| radius_km | No | Search radius in kilometers (default 50) | |
| start_date | No | Start date filter in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns events with specific fields and supports optional filters. However, it does not explain behaviors like pagination, default ordering, rate limits, or what happens if no results are found. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence is meaningful and concise. Excellent structure.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain how to combine city vs coordinates, how date filters interact, or constraints like maximum radius. It covers the basics but misses details that would help an agent use the tool correctly.
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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds the phrase 'with optional filters' but provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Thus, the description adds minimal value over the 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?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Search for events'), the resource ('events'), and the context ('near a location with optional filters'). It also mentions the return fields (name, venue, date, category, ticket URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_event_details' or 'get_cities'.
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?
Guidance is explicit: 'Use this to help users find events in a city or near coordinates.' This tells the AI when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply other tools for different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_event_weeksAInspect
Search event weeks by name, description, or city. Use this to find specific conferences or festivals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query to match against name, description, or city |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description only implies a read operation without disclosing behavior such as pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns full details. Lacks thorough disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is adequate but could mention that results are a list of event weeks with identifiers to improve completeness.
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%, and the description repeats the schema's parameter description ('match against name, description, or city'), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states 'Search event weeks by name, description, or city' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_event_weeks' which would list all.
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?
Provides a reason to use ('find specific conferences or festivals') but no guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings like 'get_event_weeks' or 'search_events'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_organizersBInspect
Search organizer profiles enriched from event data. Returns organizer names, source, website/contact details, and scrape status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of organizers to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| query | No | Search by organizer name, website, or email | |
| source | No | Filter by event source (e.g., facebook, eventbrite, lu.ma) | |
| missing_contacts_only | No | Only return organizers missing website, email, or phone (default false) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The implied read-only nature is weak.
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 sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is reasonably concise, though it could be slightly more efficient by avoiding the redundant 'enriched from event data' phrasing.
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 and no annotations, the description lacks details on response format, pagination, error handling, or sorting. For a search tool with four parameters, this is insufficient for full understanding.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a brief mention of return fields, which does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 searches organizer profiles and lists the return fields (names, source, website/contact, scrape status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_events and search_artists.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_events for event-level searches) or when not to use it. The description only states what it does without contextual usage advice.
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!