OpenSoundBox — AI song generator

Report a problem or a needed improvement in this server

feedback_add

FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS SERVER ITSELF, not about a song. Call it when a tool behaved differently from its description, when a parameter or response field was missing, or when a refusal came without a clear reason. Be specific: the tool, what you called, what you expected, what you got — a human reads it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "feedback_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	what you called, with which arguments, what you expected, what came back
`kind`	No	problem — works wrong; improvement — something is missing; question — something is unclear
`tool`	No	tool name; empty — about the whole server
`title`	Yes	the gist in one sentence, at least 10 characters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'a human reads it', meaning the submission is routed to a person, which explains why specificity matters and sets expectations about response. It does not mention whether submissions are rate-limited or whether any confirmation/ID is returned, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope correction that matters most, then the trigger list, then the specificity instruction. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter, non-destructive write tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies purpose, triggers, and content-quality expectations. The only missing piece is any hint of what the caller gets back after submitting or whether follow-up is possible, which is a small gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents body, kind (with the enum meanings), tool, and title including length constraints. The description's 'the tool, what you called, what you expected, what you got' largely restates the body field's schema text, so it adds little new per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific, capitalized scope statement — feedback about the server itself, not about a song — which is an explicit verb+resource plus a differentiation from the song-oriented siblings (create_song, song_status). An agent can immediately tell what this tool is for and what it is not for.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives three concrete trigger conditions (tool behaved differently from its description, a parameter or response field was missing, an unclear refusal) plus the exclusion 'not about a song'. That is clear when-to-use guidance; only a general 'do not use for X' beyond songs is absent, which is minor given the narrow scope.

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

All OpenSoundBox — AI song generator tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?