Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

search_events

GET /search/events — Search events

Search enabled DC events by name, description, host, and venue. No default time filter — pass ?since= or ?until= (ISO 8601 dates) to constrain. They compose: pass both for an explicit window.

Query syntax (q=): plain words match with prefix + typo tolerance. Wrap a phrase in double quotes to require an exact ordered match — e.g. q="remote work". AND/OR/NOT/parentheses are NOT parsed in q= — use the structured filter params below for boolean composition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch text. Required.
pageNo1-indexed page number.
limitNoMax hits per page (1-100).
sinceNoEvents ending on or after this date (ISO 8601).
untilNoEvents starting on or before this date (ISO 8601).
cityIDNoEvents whose chapter city is this Google Place ID.
userIDNoScope to events hosted by this DCer.
countryNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. `TH`, `MX`).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: no default time filter, query syntax details (prefix+typo tolerance, exact phrase, no boolean parsing). With no annotations, the description carries full burden but omits information on authentication, rate limits, result ordering, or what 'enabled' means.

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?

Two well-structured paragraphs with clear sections for query syntax. Uses bold and code formatting effectively. Every sentence adds value, no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Input parameters are well-covered. However, with no output schema and no description of return value structure, the agent lacks context on what the response contains (e.g., list of events, fields included, pagination). For a search tool, this is a noticeable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains composition of time filters, query syntax (e.g., quotes for exact match), and some parameter behavior. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states search action on enabled DC events by multiple fields. It includes HTTP method and path, and distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_chapters or search_profiles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly explains time filter usage (since, until) and query syntax. Provides guidance on boolean composition limitations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'events' or 'search', which might also retrieve events.

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

All DC Member API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources