Skip to main content
Glama
prmichaelsen

eventbrite-mcp

by prmichaelsen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_sales_report

Retrieve sales reports for Eventbrite events by event IDs, status, or date range to track ticket sales, revenue, and payment data.

Instructions

Retrieve a sales Report by Event ID or status.

ENDPOINT: GET /reports/sales/

PARAMETERS:

  • event_ids (array[string], required): Event IDs

  • event_status (string): all, live, ended

  • start_date, end_date (string): Date range

  • filter_by (string): Filter by ticket_ids, currencies

  • group_by (string): payment_method, ticket, currency, event, country, etc.

  • period (number): Time period in date_facet units

  • date_facet (string): fifteen, hour, day, event_day, week, month, year, none

  • timezone (string): Timezone (default: first event timezone)

ERRORS (400):

  • ARGUMENTS_ERROR, CURRENCY_MISMATCH, INVALID, INVALID_PARAMETER

AUTHENTICATION: Requires: Authorization: Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateNoEnd date
timezoneNoTimezone
event_idsYesEvent IDs (required)
start_dateNoStart date
event_statusNoEvent status filter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.6

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: the GET endpoint implies a non-destructive read, and it discloses the auth requirement (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN) plus concrete 400 error codes. It still omits pagination, rate limits, and response shape, so it is not fully transparent.

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-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly sectioned into ENDPOINT, PARAMETERS, ERRORS, and AUTHENTICATION. The structure is easy to scan; the only cost is mild redundancy between the parameter block and the schema it restates.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies endpoint, full parameter semantics, error codes, and auth - everything needed to make a correct call. It stops short of describing the report payload returned, which is the one remaining gap.

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% but carries no enums (0 enums reported), so the description's enumeration of legal values for event_status (all/live/ended), filter_by, group_by, date_facet, and the timezone default adds real meaning beyond the schema. The extra parameters it documents (filter_by, group_by, period, date_facet) are not even in the input schema, which is useful but leaves their exact interaction unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a sales Report') and scopes it by Event ID or status, which is clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_attendee_report, so the agent must infer the sales-vs-attendee distinction on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative report tool. The parameter list implies a filtered lookup, but the description never tells the agent under what circumstances this tool is the right choice.

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