eventbrite-mcp

update_venue

Modify an existing venue's name, address, capacity, or age restriction by its ID through Eventbrite.

Instructions

Update a Venue by ID.

ENDPOINT: POST /venues/{venue_id}/

VENUE FIELDS (all optional for update):

name (string): Venue name
address (object): Address
age_restriction (string): Age restriction
capacity (number): Max capacity

AUTHENTICATION: Requires: Authorization: Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "venue_id": "<venue_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_venue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Venue name
`address`	No	Address
`capacity`	No	Capacity
`venue_id`	Yes	Venue ID (required)
`age_restriction`	No	Age restriction

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.6Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the POST endpoint, required bearer token, and that all fields are optional for update, but it omits mutation side effects, permission requirements beyond auth, error behavior, and what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and organized into endpoint, fields, and authentication sections. However, the field list largely repeats the schema descriptions, which is mildly wasteful given full schema coverage.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, auth, and parameter optionality. It is adequate but missing return-value expectations and failure-mode details that an agent would need for safe invocation.

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 the schema already defines all parameters. The description's field list and optionality note add little beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a Venue by ID') and includes the exact endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from get_venue, create_venue, and list_venues in the sibling set.

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 implies the tool is for updating an existing venue, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like create_venue or get_venue. It only notes that fields are optional.

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

Deploy Server