Skip to main content
Glama
robandrewford

Ticketmaster Partner API

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as searching for events, venues, or attractions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained. The name 'search_tm_partner' follows a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is too few for a server named 'Ticketmaster Partner API', which implies a broader set of operations beyond search. The tool count feels severely limited given the domain scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The server only offers a search tool, leaving out essential operations like retrieving event details, managing orders, or performing CRUD actions. This creates significant gaps that prevent an agent from accomplishing typical tasks with the API.

  • Average 2.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing
  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Search' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description is too minimal for a tool with 19 parameters.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but given the complexity of the tool (19 parameters, many optional), it is under-specified. Structure is lacking as there is no breakdown of usage patterns or parameter grouping.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    With 19 parameters and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain how parameters interact, what the response format is, or any constraints like required combinations. The tool is complex, and the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not contradict the schema either. The generic description does not compensate for any missing schema details.

    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 it searches for events, venues, or attractions using the Ticketmaster Partner API. It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource types. However, it does not mention that the tool can also retrieve by specific IDs (eventId, venueId, attractionId), which is a minor gap.

    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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. There are no sibling tools listed, but even without alternatives, there is no context on use cases or prerequisites.

    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

mcp-server-tm-partner MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-tm-partner MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/robandrewford/mcp-server-tm-partner'

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