Free fan-convention data for AI agents: dates, registration windows & table costs, US & Canada
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.
Average 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single convention by slug, fetching coverage metadata, listing open registrations, and searching conventions. There is minimal overlap, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent `artistically_<verb>_<noun>` pattern with snake_case, using verbs like get, list, and search. This is a predictable and uniform naming convention.
The server has 4 tools, which is well-calibrated for a focused read-only convention database API. Each tool serves a distinct part of the workflow (discover coverage, search, get details, list open registrations).
The tool set covers the core use cases: discovering coverage regions, searching conventions with filters, retrieving full convention details, and finding open registration windows. There are no obvious dead ends for an agent, as search can list all upcoming conventions and get_convention provides comprehensive info.
artistally_get_conventionGet convention detailsAFull profile of one convention by slug: dates, venue and address, website, artist-alley and vendor registration windows/costs/URLs, portfolio and table-share policy, hotel block, transit access, organizer verification, and up to 6 years of attendance/pricing history. Get slugs from artistally_search_conventions or an ArtistAlly event URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Convention slug, e.g. "otafest" — the last segment of an ArtistAlly /events/ URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds valuable context about return data (up to 6 years history, verification status) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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 front-loads the purpose ('Full profile of one convention by slug') and then lists all included data concisely. No redundant or vague wording.
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 single-convention read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough, listing many return fields and constraints (up to 6 years history). Could include more on return format but adequate.
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 covers the single parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds additional context on how to obtain the slug, complementing the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the extra guidance justifies a 4.
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 it returns a 'full profile of one convention by slug' and enumerates specific data fields (dates, venue, registration windows, etc.). It also instructs how to obtain the slug, distinguishing it from sibling tools like artistally_search_conventions.
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?
Describes when to use the tool (need full profile of a specific convention) and how to get slugs (from search or event URL). While it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios, the context makes alternatives clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
artistally_get_coverageGet coverage mapAThe regions, states/provinces, and metro areas ArtistAlly tracks, with approved-convention counts. Use it to learn valid region/state/metro filter values for the other tools. Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool takes no arguments and reveals its purpose as a reference data provider, which aligns well with annotations.
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 sentence front-loads the essential purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
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 is simple with no parameters and annotations cover safety, the description adequately describes the output (regions, states/provinces, metro areas with counts). However, it could mention if the output is flattened or nested, but this is not critical.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description notes 'Takes no arguments,' which is clear and sufficient. No additional parameter documentation is needed.
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 that the tool returns regions, states/provinces, and metro areas with approved-convention counts, and specifically distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating it provides valid filter values for other tools.
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 explicitly tells users to use this tool to learn valid filter values for other tools, which is a strong usage guideline. However, it does not mention scenarios where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
artistally_list_open_registrationsList open registrationsAArtist-alley and vendor/dealer registration windows that are open right now or opening soon, sorted by urgency (soonest close date first). The go-to tool for questions like "which cons can I still apply to?" or "what artist alleys open this month?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Which registration kind to include. Default: both. | |
| limit | No | Max entries per section, default 30. | |
| state | No | Two-letter US state or Canadian province code, e.g. "GA", "TX", "ON". | |
| region | No | Coverage region, e.g. "Southeast", "Midwest", "West Coast", "Canada". Valid values come from artistally_get_coverage. | |
| community | No | Filter by community: furry, anime, gaming, or multi (multi-genre). | |
| within_days | No | Look-ahead window in days for "opening soon". Default 30. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. Description adds value: sorted by urgency, includes only open or soon-to-open windows. No 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core function and sorting, immediately followed by illustrative examples. 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?
With 6 optional params, no output schema, and good annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned (list sorted by close date). Could mention pagination or sections but not critical.
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 descriptions for all 6 parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, hence baseline score.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing open registration windows for artist-alley and vendor/dealer, sorted by urgency. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on open/upcoming registrations vs. convention details or coverage.
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 says 'The go-to tool for questions like...' providing clear use cases. Does not mention when not to use or contrast with siblings, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
artistally_search_conventionsSearch conventionsASearch fan conventions (furry, anime, gaming) across 51 US and Canadian metro areas. Returns upcoming conventions by default (soonest first); set include_past to search the archive too. Filter by text, community, region, state, metro, or date range. Returns dates, venue, location, registration windows and table costs, plus a canonical ArtistAlly URL per convention.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 20. | |
| metro | No | Metro slug from artistally_get_coverage, e.g. "atlanta", "toronto". | |
| query | No | Free-text match on convention name, venue, or city, e.g. "Otafest" or "Atlanta". | |
| state | No | Two-letter US state or Canadian province code, e.g. "GA", "TX", "ON". | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset, default 0. | |
| region | No | Coverage region, e.g. "Southeast", "Midwest", "West Coast", "Canada". Valid values come from artistally_get_coverage. | |
| community | No | Filter by community: furry, anime, gaming, or multi (multi-genre). | |
| include_past | No | Include conventions that have already finished (default false). Past results are still sorted soonest-first; use starts_after/starts_before to target a specific year. | |
| starts_after | No | Only conventions starting on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| starts_before | No | Only conventions starting on or before this date (YYYY-MM-DD). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false), the description discloses default ordering (upcoming, soonest first), the include_past toggling behavior, that past results remain sorted soonest-first, and the set of returned fields including a canonical URL. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in the structured annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core function, and packs essential details (geography, default behavior, filters, output fields) without redundancy. No filler words or repetition of schema property names verbatim, except for the necessary include_past explanation.
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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides crucial output semantics (dates, venue, location, registration windows, table costs, URL) and default/filter behaviors. It fully equips an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to narrow results. The only minor omission is pagination, but offset/limit are documented in the schema.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by grouping filters conceptually ("text, community, region, state, metro, or date range") and explicitly highlighting the include_past flag as the way to search the archive. This helps an agent conceptualize parameter combinations, though it does not detail each parameter's syntax.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Search fan conventions" across defined geographies, and later details what is returned (dates, venue, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on search/listing capabilities rather than single-record retrieval, coverage discovery, or open registrations.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a user needs to find conventions across metro areas with filters and date ranges. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for a specific convention ID use get_convention'), but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among sibling tools.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!