Skip to main content
Glama

Setlist Fm

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), free/no-quota status, the claim_token workflow for tracking, daily human review, and roadmap impact. It also explains the no-account fallback, which is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average, but nearly every sentence earns its place by answering a likely usage question or edge case. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then branches into when-not-to-use, claim_token mechanics, rate limits, and workflow impact. Slight redundancy in the 'different MCP server' explanation could be trimmed, but the structure is logical and readable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 4 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and no helpful annotations, the description fully compensates: it explains the return token behavior, what types of feedback are valid, how to formulate messages, and the operational constraints. The agent can reliably decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect from it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful beyond-schema semantics: it clarifies the claim_token lifecycle (pass it later to read resolution status), instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting user prompts, and reinforces message specificity. This elevates it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as the channel for reporting issues or praise about Pipeworx tools specifically, unlike ask_pipeworx or research tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Usage guidance is explicit and comprehensive: it names concrete scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides a clear exclusion ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also tells users how to attribute feedback to specific Pipeworx tools/packs, eliminating ambiguity about scope.

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

All Setlist Fm 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources