classificationTicketmaster Discovery API — full detail for a single classification by ID: segment, genre, sub-genre hierarchy with names and IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| locale | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds context that the data comes from the 'Ticketmaster Discovery API' and details the exact structure returned (segment, genre, sub-genre hierarchy), which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the returned data hierarchy. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it appropriately concise.
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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with a rich output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the lookup method, and the expected data hierarchy. The only gap is the undocumented 'locale' parameter, but given the output schema covers return values, this is a minor omission.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the 'id' parameter via 'by ID'. The optional 'locale' parameter is completely undocumented, leaving it unexplained. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description should compensate but only partially addresses the 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 it returns 'full detail for a single classification by ID', specifying both the resource (classification) and the scope (single by ID). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'classifications' (plural) which likely handles listing or searching, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies the tool is used when you have a specific classification ID and want detailed hierarchical data. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like 'classifications' or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving usage guidance implicit.
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.
The tools fall into two unrelated domains (Ticketmaster event discovery and Pipeworx data research), and within the Pipeworx set there are near-duplicate tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, plus multiple overlapping prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.). An agent would struggle to choose among these overlapping options and may not realize that most tools are unrelated to the server's stated name.
Naming uses consistent snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: Ticketmaster resource fetchers are bare nouns (event, venue, attraction, classification) while search tools use verb_noun (event_search, venue_search). Pipeworx tools vary between verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim) and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_kalshi_spread). This inconsistency makes predicting tool names harder, though each name is still readable.
41 tools is excessive for a server titled 'Ticketmaster' when only about 10 are Ticketmaster-related; the other 30 cover an entirely different service (Pipeworx). The count is far beyond a focused scope and suggests the server should be split into two separate, well-scoped MCP servers.
For the Ticketmaster half, the surface is complete for read-only event discovery (search events/venues/attractions, get single resources, classifications, autocomplete). For the Pipeworx half, the tool suite is extensive, covering lookup, research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The only notable gap is the lack of any write operations, but this is consistent with the read-only nature of the underlying APIs.