Toronto Tech Week 2026 Events
Server Details
Search 500+ Toronto Tech Week 2026 events by date, theme, audience, format, and neighborhood.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a unique purpose: get_event retrieves full details by ID, list_facets provides filter options, and search_events handles querying with filters. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_event, list_facets, search_events), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to searching, exploring facets, and retrieving event details. This covers the core functionality without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the main user needs: discovering events via search and facets, and getting full details. No obvious gaps for a single-event-finder server.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_eventAInspect
Get full details for one event by id, including description, host, venue, link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Event id from a previous search_events result |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool retrieves details but does not mention that it is read-only, has no side effects, or any prerequisites like event existence. However, it is a simple get operation, so the transparency is adequate.
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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key fields returned. No redundant 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?
For a simple event retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the input ID and the kind of information returned (description, host, venue, link). An agent can use this 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 only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Event id from a previous search_events result'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.
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 it retrieves full details for a single event by ID, including specific fields. This distinguishes it from siblings: 'search_events' returns multiple events, and 'list_facets' likely returns facets, not events.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. It is implied that this tool is used after 'search_events' to get full details, but the description does not state when not to use it or provide explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_facetsAInspect
List all available filter values (dates, themes, audiences, formats, neighborhoods) with counts. Call this first if the user's question is open-ended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool lists values with counts, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or permissions needed. Adequate but could be more explicit about safety.
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 with no wasted words. First sentence gives purpose, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 no parameters and no output schema, description sufficiently explains purpose and usage. Lacks specifics on output structure (e.g., format of counts), but complexity is low. Could mention that results are grouped by category or sorted, but not essential.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 4. Description adds value by detailing what information is listed (categories and counts), which helps an agent understand the output beyond 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 'List', resource 'available filter values', and specifies the categories (dates, themes, audiences, formats, neighborhoods) with counts. It distinguishes from siblings as it lists options rather than retrieving a specific event or searching.
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?
Explicitly advises to 'Call this first if the user's question is open-ended', providing clear context for when to use this tool over others, which is helpful for an agent deciding on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_eventsAInspect
Search Toronto Tech Week 2026 events. Combine q with optional filters. Returns lightweight rows; call get_event for full details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free-text search across title, description, host, venue | |
| date | No | Single date YYYY-MM-DD | |
| host | No | Substring match against host or co-host name | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| theme | No | Substring match against theme tags, e.g. 'AI', 'Climate', 'Web3' | |
| format | No | Substring match against event format, e.g. 'Workshop', 'Panel', 'Demo' | |
| audience | No | Substring match against target audience, e.g. 'Founders', 'Seed', 'Engineers' | |
| free_only | No | Only events marked 'Open to the public' | |
| date_range | No | Inclusive date range. Use list_facets to see which dates have events. | |
| neighborhood | No | Substring match, e.g. 'Queen West', 'King West', 'Downtown' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that results are lightweight, but fails to mention important behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, AND/OR logic, sorting, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The minimal disclosure leaves significant gaps.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second provides a direct pointer to a sibling tool, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
With 10 non-required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a behavioral note, but lacks guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., AND vs OR), default limits, or result ordering. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'combine q with optional filters', so it does not exceed the baseline.
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 searches Toronto Tech Week 2026 events, specifies the action ('Search'), and differentiates from siblings by mentioning lightweight rows and directing to get_event for full details.
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?
It instructs to combine 'q' with optional filters and explicitly advises calling get_event for full details, providing clear context and a key alternative. However, it does not discuss when not to use this tool or mention list_facets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!