Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

eventbrite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Verify this server can reach Eventbrite

eb_healthcheck
Read-onlyIdempotent

Test Eventbrite API credentials and connectivity by making one authenticated request, then report which step failed and why.

Instructions

Reports which hop is broken when a real tool fails. With EVENTBRITE_TOKEN set: Resolves the credential the way real tools do, then makes one authenticated request to www.eventbriteapi.com. Reports which source supplied the credential, whether www.eventbriteapi.com accepted it, the round-trip time, and a plain-English hint distinguishing 'no credential' from 'credential rejected' from 'a www.eventbriteapi.com-side problem'. Read-only; never returns the credential itself. Without a token, discovery falls back to your signed-in browser tab, so it round-trips /api/v3/categories/ on www.eventbrite.com through that bridge instead and says the token is missing. Every failure carries an error.kind — e.g. 'credential_rejected', 'edge_blocked' (a CDN/WAF refused the request; the token was never judged), 'no_credential', 'timeout', 'http', 'transport'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: credential resolution order, the exact endpoints hit, round-trip timing, browser-bridge fallback when no token exists, the guarantee that the credential is never returned, and an enumerated set of error.kind values including the useful 'edge_blocked' vs 'credential_rejected' distinction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then branches cleanly into token/no-token behavior before listing error kinds. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every clause carries information; only minor pruning is possible.

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?

With no output schema and non-trivial branching behavior, the description still fully covers what is reported (round-trip time, credential source, acceptance), the fallback path, and the failure taxonomy. An agent has everything needed to interpret results.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it is a reachability/diagnostic check that reports 'which hop is broken when a real tool fails.' This cleanly distinguishes it from every sibling, which are all Eventbrite data-access tools, and the title reinforces it.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation ('when a real tool fails') and explains two distinct execution modes depending on whether EVENTBRITE_TOKEN is set. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools to try first, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools