MGS Toolbox

A random track

random_track

One published track at random among those matching the filters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Text search in title, description, keywords.
`era`	No	Era token(s), comma-separated.
`mood`	No	Musical style(s), comma-separated: Orchestral, Celtic, Folk, Medieval, Metal…
`type`	No	Audio type(s), comma-separated: music, ambience, sfx…
`album`	No	Album id or slug.
`genre`	No	Theme(s), comma-separated, case-insensitive: Combat, Forest, Dungeon, Taverns and Inns, Magic, Weather… (audio_taxonomy lists them).
`keyword`	No	Keyword(s), comma-separated, any of them.
`composer`	No	Composer id or slug.
`duration_max`	No	Maximum duration, seconds.
`duration_min`	No	Minimum duration, seconds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description accurately states behavior but omits details such as return format, error handling when no tracks match, and confirmation that it is a read-only operation. Given no annotations, the description carries the burden and only partially meets it.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks an output schema or return-structure details. It also doesn't mention potential error responses. However, within the context of sibling tools, a 'track' object is likely understood, so completeness is adequate but not full.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The descriptions are clear individually, but the description does not clarify how multiple filters are combined (e.g., AND vs OR). Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool returns a random published track filtered by criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tracks (search) and random_entry (random encyclopedia entry) by specifying 'published track' and 'matching the filters'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention use cases or conditions, nor does it reference sibling tools.

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

All MGS Toolbox 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: get_entry and get_track operate on different domains (encyclopedia vs. music), list_albums/list_composers/list_entries/list_facets are distinct list operations, and search_encyclopedia/search_tracks are separate search functions. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_entry, list_albums, search_tracks, random_entry), but audio_taxonomy and craft_rules are exceptions, not following the verb_noun structure. This is a minor deviation.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server covers both a music database and an encyclopedia/crafting reference without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is well within the typical range for a specialized server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all common read operations: listing, searching, retrieving by ID, random selection, and static reference (taxonomy, rules). For a read-only reference server, this is complete, with no obvious gaps for the described domain.

Resources

Need Help?