setlistFetch a single setlist by its setlist.fm setlist_id. Returns artist, event date, venue, city, and the full ordered track list with song names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| setlist_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Setlist ID | |
| url | No | Setlist URL | |
| sets | No | Performance sets | |
| tour | No | Tour info | |
| venue | No | Venue info | |
| artist | No | Artist info | |
| eventDate | No | Event date |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. Description adds that it returns artist, event date, venue, city, and full track list, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 the key action. Every sentence is valuable and there is no extraneous information.
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 low complexity (one required parameter, simple read operation) and presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary information to understand what the tool does and what it returns.
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 0%, but the single parameter setlist_id is self-explanatory from the name and context. The description mentions it and its format, adding minimal meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Fetch' and resource 'a single setlist by its setlist.fm setlist_id', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like setlist_search, artist_setlists, and venue_setlists.
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 indicates when to use: when you have a specific setlist ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides that guidance.
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.