Retrieve upcoming Ticketmaster events for one attraction by ID, with optional page and sort by relevance or date.
List an attraction's Ticketmaster events. Returns upcoming Ticketmaster events for one attraction. The sort enum accepts relevance and date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric Ticketmaster attraction id | |
| page | No | Zero-based page (0-49) | |
| sort | No | Result order |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / sort / enumAdded value: +[
+ "relevance",
+ "date"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one genuine behavioral fact ('upcoming' events, not all events) but then repeats the sort enum already present in the schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, rate limits, or error handling, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 the core action. The sort sentence is partially redundant with the schema enum, which prevents a 5, but there is no filler or wasted prose.
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 moderate-complexity list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and sort options but leaves the response format and pagination behavior to the agent's guess. The schema covers page ranges, but the tool overall is adequate rather than complete.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the enum values for sort, but those duplicate the schema's enum definition. The 'for one attraction' phrasing lightly reinforces the id parameter, but no meaningful new parameter meaning is added.
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 (List), resource (an attraction's Ticketmaster events), and scope (for one attraction). This distinguishes it from siblings like ticketmaster_search_events and ticketmaster_venue_events, which use different lookup keys, without needing to open any 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?
The phrase 'for one attraction' implies the agent should already have a specific attraction id, which implicitly separates this from search-style alternatives. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools or states when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.