Music360 MCP

music360_list_fonograma

Lista registros de fonograma do tenant atual.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`search`	No
`order_by`	No	Campo para ordenacao (ex.: data_lancamento/lancamento, nome, atualizacao, criacao). Para produto fonografico, "lancamento" e "mais recente" significam data_lancamento. Quando omitido, usa ordenacao padrao da entidade.
`per_page`	No
`order_dir`	No	Direcao da ordenacao: ASC crescente, DESC decrescente (padrao).
`response_profile`	No	Perfil de resposta. Listagens usam summary por padrão; sensitive exige admin.
`sensitive_access_purpose`	No	Finalidade operacional obrigatória quando response_profile=sensitive ou include_sensitive_details=true.
`include_sensitive_details`	No	Retorna detalhes sensíveis mínimos quando autorizado por escopo admin. Padrão: false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Resultado paginado.
`success`	Yes	Indica se a operacao foi bem-sucedida.
`entity_type`	Yes	Tipo da entidade consultada.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing scope ('tenant atual') and omits important behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default ordering, sensitive response handling, or read-only guarantees. The verb 'Lista' implies a read operation but does not explicitly disclose side effects or defaults.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, object, and scope.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and covers return values, but for a list tool with 8 parameters and sensitive-data options, the description is minimal. It provides core purpose and tenant scope but lacks operational context like pagination defaults, sensitive access, and relationships to sibling tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 63% of parameters, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Undocumented parameters like page, search, and per_page are not explained, and the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Lista' and identifies the resource 'registros de fonograma' with the explicit scope 'tenant atual'. This clearly differentiates it from get_fonograma (single record) and other list_* siblings by entity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use case is implied: use this tool to list phonogram records. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like search or get_fonograma, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but alternatives are not mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Music360 MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting a specific entity or reference data. The get/list distinction is standard and unambiguous. Reference list tools are also clearly separated by domain.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'music360_'. Verbs are consistently 'get', 'list', 'search', or 'healthcheck', and the naming is uniform throughout. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the set is quite large, exceeding the threshold where tool count becomes unwieldy. While the domain has many entity types, the lack of mutation tools means many similar read-only list/get tools inflate the count without adding corresponding functionality.

Completeness1/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a management system: there are no create, update, or delete tools for any entity. The reference list tools explicitly reference create tools like 'music360_create_fonograma' that do not exist, leaving clear dead ends and an inability to perform core operations.

Resources

Need Help?