Retrieves a single setlist.fm show by artist and date, optionally using venue to resolve ties, for standalone setlist lookups.
Look up one show on setlist.fm by artist and date. concert_add already does this; call only when asked about a setlist alone. NO_REPLY means answer exactly NO_REPLY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Concert date as YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| venue | No | Venue name to break ties. | |
| artist | No | Artist name, e.g. "Zed Fox". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'look up', and the description adds the external source (setlist.fm), the single-record scope, and a fallback ('NO_REPLY'). The fallback phrasing is cryptic — it doesn't say whether the tool returns NO_REPLY or the agent should emit it, nor what happens when no match exists — so it stops short of full disclosure.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by routing and fallback. The final NO_REPLY sentence is compact but under-explained rather than wasteful.
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?
Read-only annotations and full schema coverage carry most of the burden, and no output schema exists to require return-value docs. However, all three parameters are optional with empty defaults and the description never says what a call with missing artist/date does, nor what 'one show' contains.
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 artist, date (YYYY-MM-DD) and venue tie-breaker are already documented in the schema. The description names artist and date but adds nothing about the venue tie-breaker or the meaning of empty defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Look up one show on setlist.fm by artist and date') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling concert_add. An agent can distinguish it from every listed sibling without opening a schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-not rule ('concert_add already does this') and the narrow condition that selects this tool ('call only when asked about a setlist alone'). Alternatives and exclusions are both named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.