list_upcoming_gigsList upcoming electron.dance gigs, each with its current going/maybe attendance. Use this for 'what's on tonight/this week/this weekend' style questions instead of scraping the website — results are sorted soonest-first, so filter/take the first entries for 'tonight'. Open to anyone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of gigs to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: results are sorted soonest-first, and each gig includes going/maybe attendance. It also states it's open to anyone, implying no auth required. However, it stops short of detailing pagination or error cases, which is a minor gap.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage and sorting behavior, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage, sort order, included fields, and access. No output schema exists, but the description explains what the list contains, making it complete enough for an agent to use effectively.
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 one parameter (limit) is fully described in the schema as 'Max number of gigs to return'. The description doesn't add extra information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'upcoming electron.dance gigs', and mentions attendance data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rsvp_to_gig or get_top_tracks.
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?
It explicitly instructs to use for 'what's on tonight/this week/this weekend' questions and suggests filtering first entries for tonight. It also says 'instead of scraping the website', providing an alternative, and 'Open to anyone' as an access note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct concern: site links, Spotify top tracks, gig listings, and RSVP management. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, rsvp_to_), using clear, predictable naming. The use of both 'get' and 'list' for retrieval is still consistent and intuitive.
With only four tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core actions for the electron.dance domain. Each tool is necessary and there is no bloat or redundancy.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the exposed functionality: retrieving public info (links, tracks, events) and performing an action (RSVP). For a specialized server, this is a complete surface without notable gaps.