Music360 MCP

music360_list_show

Lista registros de show 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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions tenant scoping but omits critical behaviors like pagination, default ordering, response profiles, sensitive data handling, and authentication requirements. The schema implies these behaviors but the description does not explain them.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. While front-loaded and brief, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it not 'appropriately sized' for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and a complex schema (response profiles, sensitive handling), a one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, defaults, sensitive access requirements, or relationship to other list tools. The output schema exists but is not described in the text.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 63%, meaning several parameters (page, search, per_page) lack schema descriptions, and the description does not compensate for this gap. The self-explanatory names partially mitigate the issue, but the description itself provides zero value for parameter understanding.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Lista registros de show') and scope ('do tenant atual'), identifying it as a list operation for shows within the current tenant. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the related get_show tool, though the verb 'list' conveys multiplicity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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, such as get_show for a single show, or how to combine it with other list tools. There is no mention of pagination, filtering, or other usage context.

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?