userFetch a setlist.fm user profile by user_id. Returns username, fullname, about text, website, and statistics on attended concerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | User profile URL | |
| name | No | User name | |
| about | No | User bio | |
| avatar | No | Avatar URL | |
| userId | No | User ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read. Description adds returned fields but no additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth).
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 is front-loaded and descriptive. Every word adds value; no filler.
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 simple one-param tool, presence of output schema, and informative annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. Slight gap: no mention of optional parameters if any exist, but none are defined.
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 has no description for user_id (0% coverage). Description mentions 'by user_id' and provides an example, adding basic context but no format or constraints.
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 the tool fetches a setlist.fm user profile by user_id and lists returned fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like user_attended.
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?
States basic usage (fetch by user_id) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_attended or search tools.
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.