Venue
venueRead-onlyIdempotent
Single venue.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| locale | No |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Ticketmaster
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which convey safety and idempotency. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond those annotations, such as whether it returns a single venue by ID or what happens if no venue is found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single vague phrase does not earn its place because it provides almost no useful information to the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description completely fails to explain the tool's core function. The agent cannot reliably determine what 'single venue' means operationally or how it relates to sibling tools, making the description inadequate for correct tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists 'id' and 'locale' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer that 'id' identifies a venue and 'locale' might affect localization, but with no explicit guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Single venue.' is a noun phrase that merely restates the tool name (Venue) without stating an action. It does not specify whether this tool retrieves, creates, or deletes a venue, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like venue_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like venue_search, attraction, or event. The description provides no context for choosing this tool in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The tools fall into two unrelated domains (Ticketmaster event discovery and Pipeworx data research), and within the Pipeworx set there are near-duplicate tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, plus multiple overlapping prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.). An agent would struggle to choose among these overlapping options and may not realize that most tools are unrelated to the server's stated name.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming uses consistent snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: Ticketmaster resource fetchers are bare nouns (event, venue, attraction, classification) while search tools use verb_noun (event_search, venue_search). Pipeworx tools vary between verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim) and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_kalshi_spread). This inconsistency makes predicting tool names harder, though each name is still readable.
Tool Count2/5
41 tools is excessive for a server titled 'Ticketmaster' when only about 10 are Ticketmaster-related; the other 30 cover an entirely different service (Pipeworx). The count is far beyond a focused scope and suggests the server should be split into two separate, well-scoped MCP servers.
Completeness4/5
For the Ticketmaster half, the surface is complete for read-only event discovery (search events/venues/attractions, get single resources, classifications, autocomplete). For the Pipeworx half, the tool suite is extensive, covering lookup, research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The only notable gap is the lack of any write operations, but this is consistent with the read-only nature of the underlying APIs.