Search for shows by filtering on year, city, state, or venue.
Find shows by year, city, state, and/or venue name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| venue | No | ||
| include_related | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or destructive. Although 'find' implies a non-mutating operation, the lack of explicit side-effect information or mention of rate limits/pagination leaves behavioral transparency incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, avoiding unnecessary words. It fits in one sentence and clearly lists the main search criteria without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks critical operational details such as whether at least one criterion is required, how multiple criteria are combined (the 'and/or' is ambiguous), and what happens when no criteria are provided. Although an output schema exists, the search behavior is not fully specified, which is essential for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only mentions year, city, state, and venue name, omitting 'limit' and 'include_related'. It does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., AND/OR logic), defaults (like limit=25), or the meaning of 'include_related'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to clarify these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding shows based on specified criteria like year, city, state, and venue name. It uses a specific verb 'find' and identifies the resource as 'shows', which is unambiguous in the context of music-related sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like 'random_show', 'latest_show', or 'get_setlist'. It does not mention any prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent uncertain about selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.