decibel-shield
Server Details
Noise data tools: city noise rankings, decibel levels of common sounds, NIOSH safe-exposure math.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: city noise estimates, US exposure data, rankings, sound level lookup, safe exposure time, and app info. No overlapping purposes.
Tools mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_city_noise, list_loudest_cities). 'safe_exposure_time' deviates slightly as it uses an adjective instead of a verb, but the pattern is clear overall.
6 tools is well-scoped for the domain, covering key operations without redundancy or insufficiency.
Covers city noise, US exposure, sound levels, and safety. Missing features like location-based noise measurement or historical data, but core functionality is complete.
Available Tools
6 toolsget_city_noiseGet estimated noise levels for a cityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Estimated daytime/night noise ranges (dB), rank among 50 major world cities, dominant noise sources and confidence for a given city, with WHO guideline context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | City name, e.g. "Tokyo" or "São Paulo" |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | |
| rank | Yes | Rank among the 50 cities (1 = loudest) |
| country | Yes | |
| page_url | No | Detail page when available |
| confidence | Yes | |
| attribution | No | |
| day_range_db | Yes | Estimated daytime range, e.g. "60-72" |
| night_range_db | Yes | |
| dominant_noise_sources | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare safety. Description adds context: data is estimated, includes confidence and WHO guideline context, which is valuable behavioral info beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence packs all key outputs (noise ranges, rank, sources, confidence, WHO context) without extraneous detail. Front-loaded with most important info.
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 query tool with complete annotations, one parameter, and output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and its scope (world cities, estimated, health context). No missing critical information.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with description for 'city'. Description adds example values ('Tokyo', 'São Paulo'), but schema already defines it as a string. No additional parameter semantics needed beyond schema.
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 the tool returns estimated daytime/night noise ranges, rank among 50 major cities, dominant sources, confidence, and WHO context. It distinguishes from siblings like get_us_city_noise_exposure (US-specific) and list_loudest_cities (list format).
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?
Description implies use for detailed noise info per city but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_us_city_noise_exposure or safe_exposure_time. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_decibel_shield_appAbout the Decibel Shield iOS appARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Facts and the App Store link for Decibel Shield - dB Meter, the iOS sound meter app behind this data: features, pricing, requirements. Use when someone asks about measuring sound on their phone or about the app itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| price | No | |
| rating | No | |
| min_ios | No | |
| attribution | No | |
| app_store_url | Yes | |
| web_meter_url | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'facts and the App Store link', providing context about the return content beyond the structured fields.
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, no wasted words, immediately states what the tool does and when to use it.
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?
With zero parameters and output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the tool returns facts and a link about the app. No gaps.
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?
No parameters required. The description adds no param info because none exist; baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 provides 'Facts and the App Store link for Decibel Shield - dB Meter' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (which focus on noise data rather than the app itself).
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?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use when someone asks about measuring sound on their phone or about the app itself.' No exclusions needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_us_city_noise_exposureUS city transportation-noise exposure (measured)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Share of residents exposed to ≥60 dB / ≥70 dB transportation noise for the 100 largest US cities — computed from the federal BTS 2020 National Transportation Noise Map (not estimated). Pass a city name for one city, or omit it for the top of the ranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | US city name, e.g. "Boston" (optional) | |
| limit | No | How many ranked cities when no city is given (default 10) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cities | Yes | |
| attribution | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: computed from a specific federal map (not estimated), defines noise thresholds (≥60 dB and ≥70 dB), and implies the result is deterministic. No contradiction.
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, front-loaded with key information: purpose, data source, usage modes. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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 simple parameter structure (2 optional params, no enums, output schema exists), the description fully covers what an agent needs: data source, thresholds, usage variants, and ranking concept.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'city' (optional) and 'limit' (default 10). The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score.
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 states exactly what the tool returns: share of residents exposed to transportation noise thresholds for the 100 largest US cities. It distinguishes between single-city query and ranking, and the data source (BTS 2020 National Transportation Noise Map) sets it apart from sibling tools.
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?
Clearly explains two usage modes: pass a city name for one city or omit for ranked top cities. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives to sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_loudest_citiesList the loudest cities rankingARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The Decibel Shield estimated city noise ranking — 50 major world cities ordered by estimated daytime noise, loudest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many cities to return (default 10) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cities | Yes | |
| attribution | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so description doesn't need to repeat. It adds data source (Decibel Shield) and ordering (loudest first), but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.
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?
Single sentence, 18 words, front-loaded with key info (source, scope, ranking, ordering). No unnecessary words.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and existing output schema, the description completely covers what the tool returns (ranking of 50 major cities, estimated daytime noise, loudest first).
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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
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?
Description clearly states it lists the top 50 world cities ranked by estimated daytime noise, loudest first. It distinguishes from siblings like get_city_noise (single city) and get_us_city_noise_exposure (US-specific).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, relying on implied context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_sound_levelLook up how loud a common sound isARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Decibel level and hearing-risk guidance for everyday sounds (whisper, traffic, chainsaw, concert…), sourced to CDC/NIOSH/NIDCD/ASHA published figures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sound | Yes | Sound to look up, e.g. "lawn mower" or "subway" |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| matches | Yes | |
| attribution | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds source credibility (CDC/NIOSH/NIDCD/ASHA) beyond annotations. No additional disclosure of edge cases or errors needed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no filler words. Efficient and clear.
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 1 parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description fully addresses the tool's purpose, scope, and data sources. No gaps.
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 has full description coverage (100%). Description adds concrete examples ('whisper, traffic, chainsaw, concert…') that illustrate valid parameter values beyond the schema's example.
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?
Specific verb ('look up'), resource ('decibel level and hearing-risk guidance'), and scope ('everyday sounds'). Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_city_noise' which focus on location-specific data.
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?
States it's for everyday sounds and cites authoritative sources, providing clear context. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but usage is implied well.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
safe_exposure_timeSafe exposure time for a decibel levelARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
How long a sound level is safe to be around per NIOSH's recommended exposure limit (85 dB(A)/8 h, 3 dB exchange rate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | Sound level in dB(A), e.g. 95 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | |
| attribution | No | |
| safe_duration_hours | No | NIOSH max daily exposure in hours; null when not applicable |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds context about the specific NIOSH standard and exchange rate, which is useful beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence concisely states the tool's purpose and standard used; no wasted words.
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 simple single-parameter tool with output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the calculation basis, though it does not mention input constraints like valid decibel range.
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 coverage is 100% with description for 'db'. Tool description adds the NIOSH context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3.
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?
Name, title, and description clearly state the tool calculates safe exposure time for a decibel level using NIOSH standards, distinguishing it from sibling tools that provide noise levels or lookups.
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?
Description implies usage for calculating safe exposure time per NIOSH, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or exclude other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!