Event
eventRead-onlyIdempotent
Single event.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| locale | No |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Ticketmaster
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain what 'single event' implies, what data the event contains, or any side effects, leaving the burden unmet despite extensive annotations.
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?
At only two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It adds no useful information, and even the minimal text is redundant with the tool name 'event'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has a simple schema and an output schema exists, the description fails to establish the tool's purpose or usage. With many event-related siblings, a complete description should clarify that 'event' retrieves a single event by ID, making this minimally viable at best.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no semantics for 'id' or 'locale'. The description does not even hint that these parameters identify and localize the event, so the agent gets no help beyond the raw schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Single event.' provides no verb or action; it merely restates the tool name and indicates singularity. It fails to say whether this retrieves, creates, or updates an event, and does not distinguish it from siblings like event_search or event_images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
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 Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count2/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.