song_stats
Summary stats for a song: times played, debut, last played, jamchart count.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| song | Yes | ||
| include_related | No |
good_honker
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior but does not disclose error handling, auth needs, or behavior of the 'include_related' parameter. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with all key information. Extremely concise and front-loaded, no wasted words.
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?
No output schema; description partially covers return values. But it omits context about the optional 'include_related' parameter and how it affects output. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; description does not explain either parameter ('song', 'include_related'). Despite listing outputs, it fails to add meaning to input parameters, which is critical for correct usage.
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?
Description clearly states it provides summary stats for a song and lists specific outputs (times played, debut, last played, jamchart count). Distinct from sibling tools like 'song_history' or 'jam_chart'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. Implies usage for summary stats but lacks when-not scenarios or comparisons to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the band's data: albums, appearances, setlists, jams, shows, songs, venues, etc. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the snake_case convention (e.g., album_info, get_setlist, song_stats). The naming is descriptive and consistently uses nouns or verb_noun patterns without mixing styles.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the server is well-scoped for a band discography/event database. Each tool serves a clear purpose and the count is balanced—neither too few nor excessive.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all key operations: searching shows, retrieving setlists, accessing song history and stats, managing albums, venues, jams, appearances, and even health checks. There are no obvious gaps in covering the band's data lifecycle.