eventbrite-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with scope prefixes (my, org, event, venue) preventing confusion. A few pairs like eb_event vs eb_event_details and eb_org_attendees vs eb_event_attendees rely on descriptions to disambiguate, but the descriptions are sufficient.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the eb_ prefix and follow a mostly consistent resource-oriented pattern (e.g., eb_org_events, eb_venue_events). Minor inconsistencies like eb_event_description vs eb_event_details and the outlier eb_healthcheck prevent a perfect score.
Tool Count2/5
With 31 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the Eventbrite API is broad, many list/get pairs could be consolidated, and the large number increases cognitive load for agents.
Completeness3/5
The read-only surface is quite comprehensive, covering events, orders, attendees, venues, organizers, ticket classes, and search. However, there are no create, update, or delete operations, which is a notable gap if the server is intended for event management beyond monitoring.
Average 4.1/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 4 of 4 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 20 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 9, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only restates the tool's name and adds no behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention pagination via the continuation token, default status filter of 'all', or that results are limited to a single venue. The annotation already covers safety, so the description contributes no additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately minimal for a simple list operation and is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is overly sparse for a tool with 3 parameters, a pagination continuation token, and a status filter with 7 values. There is no output schema, so the description should at least mention that results are paginated or that the status filter defaults to 'all', but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear descriptions and an enum for status, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists events for a venue, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like eb_org_events or eb_series_events, but the venue scoping is implicit in the tool name and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or use cases described beyond the basic listing function. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent. The description adds that the description is 'full HTML,' providing some sense of the return format, but it doesn't disclose behaviors like potential HTML size, escaping, or error conditions. Given the annotation covers safety, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. Very concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is fairly complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns (full HTML description). However, it lacks information about when to use it relative to sibling tools and any caveats, so it's not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes event_id as a 'Numeric event id' (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description contributes no additional semantic meaning about the parameter beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'an event's full HTML description,' which is specific and clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like eb_event or eb_event_details, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There's no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like eb_event or eb_event_details, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the auth context that this operates 'as organizer', which is useful beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose pagination behavior or other operational details, but the annotation already covers the read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for a tool with four parameters and pagination. It does not explain the return shape or pagination continuation, but the schema provides parameter details. Given the simple list operation and read-only annotation, it is somewhat adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, with order_by lacking a description. The description mentions status filtering, which matches the status parameter, but adds no new meaning for org_id, order_by, or continuation. The schema already describes these parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists an organization's events as organizer, with optional status filtering. This provides a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool eb_organizer_events, relying on the 'as organizer' phrase to imply the organizational scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eb_organizer_events or eb_search_events. The intended use is implied by its function, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'public way', which may imply no authentication or public data access. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any limitations beyond what annotations and schema imply. This is acceptable but not additive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with the schema and annotations, gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly for a basic list operation. It does not explicitly mention pagination or response shape, but the schema's continuation parameter and the nature of a list tool make this reasonably complete. Slightly less than a fully comprehensive description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (organizer_id, status, and continuation have descriptions; order_by does not). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema largely covers the semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists an organizer's events, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'public way' hints at a distinction from likely private alternatives, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like eb_org_events, so it falls short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case ('the public way to see everything one organizer is running') but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It lacks the explicit 'use X instead' exclusions seen in high-scoring examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying it returns discount/access codes and their usage limits, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination handling or response format. With the annotation covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the core purpose and includes an important detail ('usage limits') without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description clearly states the tool's function and the schema fully covers parameters. However, it lacks an explicit note about pagination using the continuation token, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both org_id and continuation are already documented. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an organization's discount and access codes' with the additional detail of 'usage limits'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eb_org_orders or eb_org_events, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the 'optionally windowed by date' behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior (despite the continuation parameter), or how group_by and event_status affect results. The description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It efficiently communicates the action, the resource, and an optional modifier, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level overview. It mentions date filtering but omits important behavioral aspects like pagination, grouping, and event status filtering, which are present in the schema but not explained in prose. The description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 86%, so most parameters are described in the schema. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'kind' distinguishes sales versus attendees reports and that date parameters create a window, but it does not elaborate on group_by, continuation, or event_status. This is baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Run'), the resource ('an organization's sales or attendees report'), and adds distinguishing context ('aggregated analytics behind its events, optionally windowed by date'). This effectively separates it from sibling tools like eb_org_attendees or eb_org_orders, which list raw data rather than aggregated analytics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for generating reports but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eb_org_attendees or eb_org_orders. It does not state exclusions or mention specific scenarios where this report should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a read operation, and the description's 'List' is consistent. It adds the cross-event scope (organizer's events) but does not mention pagination behavior or required organizer permissions beyond what schema/annotation provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence, front-loaded verb and object, no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with annotations and complete schema, the description identifies the resource and scope. It lacks an explicit note on pagination or response shape, but the continuation parameter and readOnly hint cover much of the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for org_id and continuation, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists orders across an organization's events with an 'organizer side' qualifier, distinguishing it from personal orders (eb_my_orders) and event-specific orders (eb_event_orders).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to prefer this over eb_event_orders or eb_my_orders, but the phrase 'organizer side' implies a business context. It leaves the agent to infer the distinction from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Read-only annotation is present and aligns with the description. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns webhooks and their subscribed actions, which is useful since there is no output schema. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with no wasted words. The verb is front-loaded and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list operation, the combination of description, schema, and annotations is adequate. The description covers return content, the schema covers parameters, and the annotation covers safety. Slight gap: no mention of pagination in description, but the continuation token in the schema implies it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both org_id and continuation have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists an organization's registered webhooks and the actions they subscribe to. The verb 'List' is specific, the resource is well-defined, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like eb_org_events or eb_org_orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only says what it does, with no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. Usage context is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns by saying 'List'. It adds modest context by naming the output fields (name, cost, free/paid, on-sale status), but does not disclose any edge cases, pagination, or limitations. This is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and return content. It could mention whether it returns all ticket classes or only public ones, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter event_id, described as 'Numeric event id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists an event's ticket classes, with a specific verb 'List' and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling eb_ticket_class (singular) by explicitly referring to plural ticket classes, making its scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—when you need an event's ticket classes—but offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer eb_ticket_class (singular) or other related tools, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile. The description adds that the event is expanded in the response and that time_filter filters orders by event time. It does not mention pagination or return structure, but given the annotation, it provides sufficient added context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, scope, and a key parameter behavior efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could mention pagination explicitly, but the schema's continuation parameter covers that, and the 'event expanded' note gives context on the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds a brief explanation of time_filter's purpose ('narrows to upcoming or past events') but doesn't expand on continuation. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the added description is marginal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List', identifies the resource as 'ticket orders', qualifies the scope as the authenticated user's, and adds 'attendee side' to distinguish from organizer tools like eb_org_orders. It also notes the event expansion, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage for viewing the current user's own orders on the attendee side, which differentiates from sibling tools for organizers (eb_org_orders) and event-specific orders (eb_event_orders). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the organizer perspective and downstream usage, but does not disclose return format or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. This is adequate given annotations, but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each serving a purpose. The first states the core function, the second gives actionable guidance. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and downstream usage. It implies the return contains org IDs, which is the key information needed. It lacks explicit mention of pagination limits or response structure, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'continuation' is fully described as a pagination token. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists organizations the authenticated user belongs to, with 'organizer side' adding crucial scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like eb_my_orders and eb_me, and mentions how to use the output with other org tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit downstream guidance: 'Use the returned org id with eb_org_events / eb_org_attendees / eb_org_orders.' This implies when this tool is the entry point, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like eb_me, which could be relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds minor context (buyer-side record) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, error handling, or expansion behavior. It is not contradictory, but it does not enrich transparency beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, and the second provides crucial context on where order IDs can be found. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-order retrieval tool with readOnly annotation and fully described parameters, the description is adequate. It adds the buyer-side distinction and ID source, which helps correct tool selection. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this less critical. Overall, fairly complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (order_id and expand) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the schema handles the heavy lifting. The description mentions where order IDs come from, which aids in knowing the value to pass, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a single order by id' with a specific resource (order) and scope (buyer-side record behind a ticket). It distinguishes from sibling tools like eb_org_orders by clarifying it retrieves buyer-side orders and references where IDs originate. This is a clear, specific verb+resource statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating that 'Order ids appear in eb_my_orders / eb_event_orders results,' which tells users when to use this tool (when they have an order id from those results). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks a direct exclusion. This is clear context without full alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It lists the content of the response (name, description, logo, social links), which is useful, but does not disclose return formatting, error behavior, or pagination. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It gets straight to the point and every element—verb, resource, id, and field list—earns its place. There is zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter, no output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides sufficient context. Listing the returned fields compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not mention error cases, but for a simple public-profile getter, this is not necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%: the parameter organizer_id is fully described as 'Numeric organizer id'. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('organizer's public profile') and the mechanism ('by id'). It also enumerates the returned fields (name, description, logo, social links), which differentiates it from sibling tools like eb_organizer_events (which fetches events) and the eb_org_* admin tools (which manage the user's own organizations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'public profile' provides clear context that this is for publicly accessible organizer data, distinguishing it from the authenticated organization-management tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the 'organizer side' qualifier, hinting at access scope, but doesn't elaborate on pagination, response format, or any rate limits. It's consistent with annotations but provides minimal extra behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the function. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with a well-described schema and readOnlyHint, the description is adequate. It doesn't explain the return format, but the name 'List attendees' implies a list. Given low complexity, it's complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions: org_id from eb_my_organizations, status filter enum, continuation token. The description itself adds no additional param detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (List), the resource (attendees), and the scope (across an organization's events, organizer side). This differentiates from eb_event_attendees which lists attendees for a single event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 you need attendee lists at the organization level, not per-event. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the scope is specific enough to guide selection. No exclusions are stated, but the 'organizer side' indicates a privilege requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'List' is consistent with that. The description adds that the output includes name, address, and geo, which is helpful context. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no venues exist, so the added value beyond annotations is modest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and provides key details without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with a complete input schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. It specifies the return fields (name, address, geo) and implies pagination via the continuation parameter in the schema, even though it doesn't explicitly mention pagination behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters: org_id and continuation, with complete coverage (100%). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'an organization's saved venues' with the fields name, address, and geo. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eb_venue (a single venue) and eb_org_events (events for an org).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this tool is for listing saved venues for a specific organization, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5. The schema further hints the org_id comes from eb_my_organizations, but this is outside the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds the behavioral detail that this tool lists occurrences, and clarifies that series_id is obtained from search results/events. However, it does not disclose pagination specifics or whether all occurrences (including past/future) are returned, which could be useful. Overall, it adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a key usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple tool with a required series_id and optional status/continuation, the description covers the core purpose and how to obtain the required parameter. The readOnly annotation and schema fill in the remaining details. It could mention the response format (e.g., that it returns a list) but 'list the occurrences' already implies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — all three parameters (series_id, status, continuation) have descriptive text. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List the occurrences of a recurring event series.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like eb_event (which lists a single event) and eb_search_events (which searches events). The mention of series_id further differentiates it as the go-to for recurring series occurrences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool by explaining that 'Search results and events carry a series_id when they belong to one.' This implies you should use this tool when you have a series_id and want to see the occurrences. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for a competent agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is true, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, only specifying that it fetches a single resource by id. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but with the annotation covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and providing a prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb 'Get'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id operation with annotated read-only behavior and fully documented parameters, the description provides adequate context. It includes a helpful pointer to the sibling listing tool, but does not elaborate on return values or error handling, which are minor gaps for such a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, describing them as numeric ids. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets one ticket class by id, specifying the resource and operation. It also distinguishes from the listing sibling by instructing to use eb_ticket_classes first, which differentiates it from the list tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context by directing users to list ticket classes first, which is a necessary prerequisite to obtain the ticket_class_id. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about public event access and how to identify event IDs, but does not discuss rate limits, errors, or the shape of the response beyond what the schema might imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional clarification about public events and ID extraction is efficient with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with two parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the target resource, access scope, and ID identification. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but this is often implied by the tool name and nature of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for event_id by explaining that the trailing digits in an event URL correspond to the ID, which is valuable guidance beyond the schema's 'Numeric event id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches an Eventbrite event by ID, with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Eventbrite event'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it works for any public event, not just the user's own, and provides concrete guidance on extracting the event ID from a URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: for any public event, not just those owned by the user. This differentiates it from organizers-specific siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the authentication behavior (bearer token by default, falling back to browser bridge when no token is configured). It also clarifies the tool's scope to 'public' events, adding meaningful context beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the primary purpose and the second providing auth context and an alternative tool. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and supportive annotations, the description covers batch behavior, auth fallback, and alternative tool usage. It does not detail return format, but the expand parameter in the schema partially implies the response scope, making this sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (event_ids and expand) with descriptions. The tool's description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond 'by id,' but it does reinforce that this is a batch operation, aligning with the event_ids array. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Batch-fetch public event details by id,' using a specific verb (batch-fetch), resource (public event details), and input (id). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing ticket-class needs to eb_ticket_classes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for batch-fetching public event details and is the preferred alternative when ticket-class detail is needed, naming eb_ticket_classes. It also explains the auth fallback (bearer token vs browser bridge), but does not explicitly contrast with the single-event sibling eb_event.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly requires organizer access to the event. This communicates an authorization prerequisite that is not apparent from the schema or annotation alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and access requirement without unnecessary words. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the readOnlyHint annotation and schema descriptions for most parameters, the description provides adequate context by specifying the event scope and organizer-side permission. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by sibling order tools, though a note about return format would have been helpful for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover event_id, continuation, and changed_since, with only the status parameter lacking a description. The enum values (all, placed, refunded) are self-explanatory, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no extra parameter detail, but the schema carries sufficient semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists a single event's orders, using the specific verb 'List' with a precise resource scope. It also notes 'organizer-side', which distinguishes it from attendee order tools like eb_my_orders and organization-wide tools like eb_org_orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys when to use the tool: for organizer-side access to a single event's orders, requiring event access. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope and permission requirement imply a clear usage context and distinguish it from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds semantic value by explaining ticket groups as 'ticket classes bundled across events', which goes beyond the annotation. It does not describe return format or pagination details, but the continuation parameter in the schema helps cover that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a helpful parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with 2 parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. It explains the core resource and scope, and the schema covers pagination. It does not describe return value structure, but no output schema exists, and the description implies a list of ticket groups. Missing some behavioral details (e.g., whether it returns all groups or requires additional filters), but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented (org_id and continuation). The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not exceptional. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an organization's ticket groups', with a clarifying parenthetical explaining what ticket groups are. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eb_ticket_classes and eb_org_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage for org-level ticket groups via 'organization's ticket groups', but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides enough context to infer when to use, but lacks explicit 'use instead of' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the returned data includes barcode, profile answers, and check-in state, giving the agent insight into what the response contains without contradicting the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends a concise parenthetical of key returned fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with two well-documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what data it returns (barcode, profile answers, check-in state), and the schema covers the parameters. No output schema exists, but the description adequately hints at the return content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (event_id as 'Numeric event id', attendee_id as 'Numeric attendee id'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, mainly confirming the attendee belongs to an event. This aligns with the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get one attendee of an event by id') and specifies the resource and scope. It also lists key fields (barcode, profile answers, check-in state) that distinguish it from sibling tools like eb_event_attendees (plural) and eb_org_attendees.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single attendee when the attendee_id is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular 'one attendee' and mention of 'by id' provides clear context that this is for specific attendee lookup, differentiating it from listing endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns lists of reference data and that IDs feed search filters, which is useful but not rich behavioral detail. It doesn't disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, so with the annotation covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes concrete examples plus a downstream usage note. Every sentence carries informational weight with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one enum parameter, no output schema needed, read-only annotation), the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, gives examples, and explains how the output relates to sibling tools, which is sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the 'kind' parameter with an enum and description, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond this by giving concrete examples of category IDs (103=Music, 101=Business) and explaining that these IDs feed eb_search_events filters, which enriches the parameter's meaning and helps the agent understand the returned values' usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Eventbrite reference data' and enumerates specific resource types (categories, subcategories, formats, timezones, countries, regions). It also provides concrete examples (103=Music) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that returned IDs feed eb_search_events filters, making it clear this is a lookup/reference tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need reference data such as category IDs for eb_search_events filters. It gives clear context by explicitly linking the output to a sibling tool's usage, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar data, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses an access requirement ('requires access to that event') and recommends a polling pattern with 'changed_since', which qualify as useful behavioral context (auth needs, usage pattern).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences totaling 18 words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second offers a practical parameter tip. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple read-only list operation with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential context: what it lists, organizer access, and a recommended streaming strategy. Pagination is hinted at by the 'continuation' schema parameter, so the lack of explicit mention is acceptable. It does not explicitly mention the 'status' filter, but the schema enum is self-explanatory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds semantic value by explaining the purpose of 'changed_since' ('to poll incrementally'), which goes beyond the schema's definition. It does not elaborate on 'status' or 'continuation', but those are already reasonably described by the schema's enum and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'List a single event's attendees', a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a single event's attendees'). The qualifier 'organizer-side' clarifies the intended audience, and the focus on 'a single event' distinguishes this from sibling tools like eb_org_attendees.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it targets a single event and requires organizer access. It also offers a concrete usage tip: 'Use changed_since to poll incrementally instead of re-reading the whole list.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it does not fully achieve the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that setting canned=true returns Eventbrite's standard question bank instead of the event's custom ones, which clarifies the two modes of operation. It does not disclose additional details like pagination or error behavior, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, with the main action in the first sentence and parameter guidance in the second. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information, achieving high conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the core functionality sufficiently. It explains both the primary action and the optional parameter's effect. While it doesn't mention return format or pagination, the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters, covering 100% of them. The description enhances this by explaining the behavioral difference between the default custom questions and the canned=true standard bank. This adds domain-specific meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List the registration questions an event asks its buyers,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on registration questions, which no other sibling tool covers. The mention of the canned parameter further clarifies the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve an event's registration questions. It explains the distinction between custom and canned question banks via the parameter, but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative sibling tools. Thus, the usage is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context: this is an unofficial consumer search absent from the documented API, supports various filters, and compact mode returns slim results. It also gives a prerequisite (resolve place first), going beyond the baseline expectation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, each delivering essential information: purpose, prerequisite, and filter/compact guidance. No filler or repetition, and the key points are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation strategy: place resolution, filter groupings, and compact mode. It omits `aggs` and detailed pagination, but the high schema coverage and annotations compensate sufficiently for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by grouping parameters into filter categories (keyword, dates, category/format ids, free/paid, online-only) and points to eb_reference for ID values. It also explains compact's purpose for browsing/ranking, adding useful conceptual structure beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Search public Eventbrite events', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It further distinguishes this from the documented API's absence, setting it apart from sibling tools like eb_org_events and eb_venue_events which operate on org-specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear usage context: it is the consumer search, and it tells the agent to first resolve the location via eb_resolve_place. It references eb_reference for IDs and suggests compact=true for browsing/ranking. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the framing implies when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (name, address, geo) and gives provenance for the id, which is useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose, and the second provides supplementary context. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter lookup tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It also explains how to obtain the required id. Minor gaps like error behavior or output structure are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter described as 'Numeric venue id'. The description compensates by explaining where to find a valid venue_id, which is helpful for an agent to construct the call correctly. This goes beyond the schema's basic type description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Get a venue by id' and specifies the returned fields (name, address, geo). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eb_org_venues (list venues) and eb_venue_events (events for a venue).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool by stating where venue ids appear (expanded events, eb_org_venues). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple lookup tool this context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that. It adds the behavioral context that authentication is required (via 'authenticated user') and names the returned fields, providing value beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, resource, and key return fields with no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (id, name, primary email). It is complete for its low complexity, and no additional behavioral or error details are necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema fully covers this with an empty properties object. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies given the 0-parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'authenticated Eventbrite user's profile' while listing the key fields returned (id, name, primary email). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on orders, organizations, or other users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'authenticated user' provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving the current user's own profile. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like eb_user or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying that the profile is public and excludes private fields like emails. This goes beyond the annotation by setting data-scope expectations, though it doesn't mention error behavior or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and zero wasted words. The alternative guidance is compactly integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and data scope. No gaps are apparent given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with 'Numeric user id', so the parameter is already well-documented. The description's 'by id' adds no extra semantic detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get a public user profile by id' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling eb_me which returns private fields. This meets the highest bar for purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use eb_me for the authenticated user's private data, providing a clear alternative. This gives direct when-to-use guidance and differentiates it from the closest sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by revealing the accepted input formats (plain text or browse slug), the city-only rejection, and the return structure including 'shelves' (curated browse shelves). It also notes that shelves are 'harvested free from the same fetch,' which is a useful detail. The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are not contradicted and cover the read-only aspect, so the description supplements them well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, giving input examples and a constraint, and summarizing the return value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: input formats, rejection conditions, return fields, and its role in a broader workflow (eb_search_events). There are no obvious gaps; the description is self-sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'location' parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it provides examples of valid formats, explains that a plain city is invalid, and clarifies that the value can be a browse slug. This goes beyond the schema's generic description and helps the agent construct valid inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve a location to Eventbrite's internal place id for eb_search_events.' It specifies the verb (resolve), the resource (location to place id), and the intended downstream use (for eb_search_events), distinguishing it from sibling tools. Concrete examples ('Charlotte, NC', 'Berlin, Germany', 'nc--charlotte') further clarify the input types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly indicates when to use the tool (as a prerequisite for eb_search_events) and provides a clear rejection condition ('A city on its own is rejected — include the state or country'). This gives the agent guidance on both use and limitations, effectively covering the 'when' and 'when-not' criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses behaviors: the specific URL used, the diagnostics returned (role, port, version, elapsed time), and the failure-mode hints. It also explicitly states 'Read-only, no auth required,' reinforcing safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action and outputs, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but the description fully covers what it does, what diagnostics it returns, and when to use it. Annotations cover safety, making the description complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't introduce parameter semantics, but none are needed. It adds context about the hardcoded URL, which is not a parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Round-trips a small public www.eventbrite.com URL (/api/v3/categories/) through the fetchproxy bridge and returns diagnostics.' It uses a specific verb (round-trips) and resource (fetchproxy bridge), and the list of diagnostics distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' This gives a clear condition for use and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives (the other eb_* tools).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![eventbrite-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/eventbrite-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/eventbrite-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![eventbrite-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/eventbrite-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/eventbrite-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chrischall/eventbrite-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server