venue_setlistsFetch paginated setlists performed at a specific venue by venue id. Returns setlists with date, artist, and track lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| p | No | ||
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Current page | |
| total | No | Total setlists | |
| setlist | No | Setlists at venue | |
| itemsPerPage | No | Items per page |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are paginated and includes output content (date, artist, track lists), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details (paginated, venue ID, output content). Every word adds value; no unnecessary 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 has two parameters, an output schema (not shown), and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the input (venue ID), pagination, and output content (date, artist, track lists). It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'id' parameter (venue ID) and hints at pagination via 'paginated', but does not explicitly define the 'p' parameter (likely page number). This is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches paginated setlists for a specific venue by ID. It specifies the resource (venue setlists) and the action (fetch), and the inclusion of the venue ID differentiates it from sibling tools like setlist_search or setlist.
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?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setlist_search, venue, or other related tools. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit differentiation.
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.