Retrieve normalized details and visitor information for a Ticketmaster venue by its numeric ID. Provides clean data for one venue.
Get a Ticketmaster venue. Returns normalized details and visitor information for one Ticketmaster venue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric Ticketmaster venue id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns normalized details and visitor information,' giving some output expectations. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, error behaviors, or requirements beyond the ID. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but lacks depth.
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 short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence 'Get a Ticketmaster venue' slightly repeats the tool name, but the second sentence adds essential context about return content. It is front-loaded and efficient, though not entirely without redundancy.
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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable summary of what it returns ('normalized details and visitor information'). It does not detail the structure of the return value, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of sibling tools like ticketmaster_venue_events provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.
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% as the parameter 'id' is documented as 'Numeric Ticketmaster venue id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 gets a Ticketmaster venue with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('venue'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticketmaster_event or ticketmaster_venue_events by mentioning 'normalized details and visitor information' for a single venue, which uniquely identifies its purpose.
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 implies usage: use this tool to retrieve details for one venue by ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, such as ticketmaster_event for event details or ticketmaster_venue_events for events at a venue. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.