Search ~190,000 upcoming U.S. live events (concerts, sports, theatre, comedy) by artist, team, show, or city. Returns event dates, locations, and ticket purchase links. Purchases through these links fund animal-shelter supplies at no extra cost to the buyer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 25) | |
| query | Yes | Artist, team, show, venue, or city name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns event dates, locations, and ticket purchase links, and discloses the affiliate/donation aspect (purchases fund animal-shelter supplies). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention potential rate limits or whether the operation is strictly read-only.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes outputs, and the third explains the donation mechanism. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema (2 params) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, return values (dates, locations, links), and the unique funding behavior. It does not mention result ordering or pagination, but the schema already details the 'limit' parameter. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds some useful context by listing event categories (concerts, sports, theatre, comedy), but this largely overlaps with the schema's query description. Thus, the description provides only marginal additional semantics 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('~190,000 upcoming U.S. live events') and clearly lists categories (concerts, sports, theatre, comedy) and search dimensions (artist, team, show, or city). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_city_events or get_top_cities, which are more specialized, by establishing it as the broad search tool.
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 provides clear context for usage: it is the general search tool covering multiple event types and locations. Although it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the contrast with sibling tool names (e.g., get_city_events) implies that this tool is for broad searches, making the usage context clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.