artist_searchSearch setlist.fm for artists by name, MusicBrainz ID, or Ticketmaster ID. Returns a paginated list of matching artist records with name, MBID, and sort name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| p | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| artistMbid | No | ||
| artistName | No | ||
| artistTmid | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | Search result items | |
| page | No | Current page | |
| total | No | Total results | |
| itemsPerPage | No | Items per page |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a search tool. Description adds value specifying searchable fields and pagination, but does not disclose behavior beyond what annotations already imply.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently communicates core purpose, search keys, and return type. No redundancy; every word earns its place.
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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and output schema existing, description covers search keys and return fields but lacks details on pagination parameters (p, sort). Could be more complete for a complex search 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 parameter coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains three parameters (artistName, artistMbid, artistTmid) but omits 'p' (page) and 'sort' (sort order) entirely, only mentioning 'paginated' generically. Adds meaning for most parameters but incomplete.
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 it searches artists by multiple identifiers (name, MBID, Ticketmaster ID) and returns paginated results. This differentiates it from siblings like 'artist' (likely single lookup) and 'artist_setlists' (setlists for known artist).
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?
Description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the search functionality is obvious, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like 'artist' or 'setlist_search' which might search by different criteria. Implicit usage but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set mixes two completely different domains: setlist.fm (12 tools) and Pipeworx data services (30+ tools). An agent cannot easily distinguish which tools belong to the server's primary purpose, leading to confusion and misselection.
Setlist.fm tools use consistent verb_noun patterns (artist, artist_search, artist_setlists), but the majority of tools follow no unified convention: some use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others use mixed case (ask_pipeworx), creating an inconsistent naming landscape.
43 tools is excessive for a setlist.fm API. Only about 12 are relevant; the remaining 31 are unrelated and bloat the tool surface, making it hard to navigate and maintain.
For the setlist.fm domain, the tools cover search, retrieval, and user data comprehensively (artists, setlists, venues, cities, countries, users). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete operations), but core workflows are supported.