mb-mastering
Server Details
Studio de mastering MB Mastering (Paris) : services, tarifs, infos studio, FAQ et demande de devis.
- 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 4.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetch retrieves by id, get_faq/get_pricing/get_services/get_studio_info provide specific information, search finds content, and send_quote_request is for contacting. No functional overlap.
Naming is inconsistent: fetch is a bare verb, get_faq/get_pricing/get_services/get_studio_info use get_ prefix, search is a bare verb, and send_quote_request is verb_noun. Mixing conventions reduces predictability.
7 tools is appropriate for a service-oriented server covering information retrieval, search, and a contact action. Not too few or too many.
The domain (mastering services info, pricing, FAQ, studio details) is well covered. The only minor gap is a direct way to fetch a document without a prior search, but search+fetch covers it adequately.
Available Tools
7 toolsfetchAInspect
Récupère le contenu complet d'un document MB Mastering à partir de son id (obtenu via search). / Fetches the full content of a document by id (from search results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant du document renvoyé par search. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions fetching 'full content' but does not elaborate on what that entails, potential errors, or permissions. It is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks detail.
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, bilingual, front-loaded with the French version. Every word is necessary; no wasted space.
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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential information: what it does and where the id comes from. It is complete enough for the use case.
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 id described. The description adds meaning by linking the id parameter to search results ('obtenu via search'), providing context beyond the 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 verb (fetches/récupère), resource (document MB Mastering), and how to obtain the identifier (via search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search (which retrieves ids) and other get_ tools (specific types).
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 explicitly states that the id is obtained from search results, implying a workflow: use search first, then fetch. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_faqAInspect
Réponses aux questions fréquentes sur le mastering chez MB Mastering : prix, délais, révisions, travail à distance, gravure vinyle, localisation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states purpose without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature or data freshness. Basic transparency, adequate for a simple read operation.
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, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without 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?
For a parameterless FAQ retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the scope of topics and purpose completely.
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 exist, baseline is 4. Description adds no param info which is appropriate given the schema covers everything.
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 is specific: it retrieves FAQs about mastering services including prices, deadlines, revisions, etc. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_services.
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 FAQ queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or any contextual conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pricingAInspect
Donne les tarifs de mastering de MB Mastering, ainsi que les délais, la politique de révisions et les modalités de paiement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states what the tool returns without any disclosure of behavioral traits (e.g., that it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires authentication). Minimal transparency.
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 that is front-loaded with the verb and covers all key aspects efficiently with 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main deliverables. However, it could be slightly more detailed about output format or prerequisites.
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 exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4; description does not need to add parameter info but effectively describes the output.
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 the tool provides mastering prices, deadlines, revision policy, and payment terms. It is specific to MB Mastering and distinct from sibling tools like get_services or get_faq.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and description (pricing inquiries), but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings or what context it is appropriate for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_servicesAInspect
Liste les services de mastering de MB Mastering (mastering stéréo, stems, à distance, gravure vinyle, numérisation, formation) avec leurs tarifs et descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates this is a read-only operation listing services with tariffs and descriptions. No destructive behavior or side effects are implied, and the scope is clear (MB Mastering services).
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and content. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing the service types explicitly in a way that aids scanning).
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?
The description fully explains what the tool returns: a list of services with their tariffs and descriptions. Given no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the return value. No parameters or complex behavior requires additional context.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.
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 lists MB Mastering's services with specific categories (stereo, stems, remote, vinyl, digitization, training) along with prices and descriptions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pricing or get_faq by focusing on the full service catalog.
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 for viewing a list of services and their prices, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like get_pricing (which might provide more detailed pricing) or get_faq. No guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_studio_infoAInspect
Informations sur le studio MB Mastering : fondateur, expérience, adresse à Paris, équipement analogique, liens et réseaux.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses what information will be returned. Since it is a simple read operation with no parameters, the risk is low. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe any side effects.
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 concise (single sentence) and front-loaded with key information. It could be structured with bullet points for clarity, but it is efficient and to the point.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully informs users about what they will get: studio details. It is complete for its context.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty). Baseline is set to 4 for zero parameters, and the description adds context about the content returned without needing to detail 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 provides studio information including specific items like founder, experience, address, equipment, and links. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_faq, get_pricing, etc., which cover different topics.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied that one should use it to get studio info, but no when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspect
Recherche dans les contenus de MB Mastering (services de mastering, tarifs, studio, FAQ) et renvoie une liste de résultats avec id, titre, extrait et URL. / Searches MB Mastering content (mastering services, rates, studio info, FAQ) and returns matching results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Termes de recherche / search query. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result structure (id, title, excerpt, URL) but omits details like pagination, result limits, or ranking behavior. For a search tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.
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 extremely concise, two sentences, bilingual, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. 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?
Given low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete, explaining scope and result fields. Missing details like sorting or filtering, but adequate for a basic search tool.
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 one parameter 'query' described as 'Termes de recherche / search query.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 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?
The description clearly states the tool searches MB Mastering content (services, rates, studio info, FAQ) and returns results with id, title, excerpt, and URL. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve specific data types.
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 use for general search across listed content types, providing context relative to siblings like get_faq or get_pricing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool or prefer alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_quote_requestAInspect
Envoie une demande de devis de mastering à MB Mastering par email. À utiliser quand l'utilisateur souhaite être recontacté. Requiert au minimum le nombre de titres et l'email du demandeur.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| genre | No | Genre musical. | |
| notes | No | Précisions libres sur le projet. | |
| format | No | Support final visé (streaming, vinyle, CD…). | |
| titles | Yes | Nombre de titres à masteriser. | |
| service | No | Service souhaité (mastering stéréo, stems, à distance, gravure vinyle…). | |
| deadline | No | Échéance éventuelle. | |
| requester_name | No | Nom du demandeur ou du projet/artiste. | |
| requester_email | Yes | Email du demandeur (pour la réponse). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the side effect of sending an email and implies subsequent contact. More detail on storage or response could improve transparency.
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?
Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, usage context, and requirements. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
The description covers purpose and requirements adequately, but lacks information on return value or confirmation. Since no output schema exists, the agent does not know what the tool returns after sending the request.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about required fields (titles and requester_email) but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 action (sends a mastering quote request by email) and the resource (MB Mastering). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (informational get_* tools) by specifying it is for initiating contact.
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 says 'Use when the user wishes to be contacted'. This clarifies the context, though it could mention that for direct information siblings should be used instead.
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!