song_stats
Stats for a song: times played, debut, last played, current gap, jamchart count.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| song | Yes | ||
| include_related | No |
good_wook
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or rate limits. The tool likely performs a read operation, but this is not stated.
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 sentence, which is concise, but it is not front-loaded with the main action. It lists stats but omits parameter details, making it somewhat incomplete.
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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and integration. It only states what stats are returned.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'song' or 'include_related'. It adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.
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 provides stats for a song and lists specific fields (times played, debut, last played, etc.). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'song_history' and 'jam_chart' by enumerating the returned stats, but does not explicitly differentiate use cases.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: setlist retrieval, jam chart, show search, song stats, venue info, etc. No overlap or ambiguity among the 11 tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use consistent snake_case with descriptive verb_noun patterns (e.g., 'get_setlist', 'search_shows', 'song_history'). The outlier 'ping' is a standard health check name.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—covering setlist, song, venue, and show operations without clutter or sparsity.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core Phish show information comprehensively: setlists, song stats, jam charts, venue data, and show search. Minor gaps (e.g., absence of review or attendance tools) are acceptable.