podcasts
Server Details
An MCP server that provides tools to discover and retrieve podcast episodes transcripts.
- 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 4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: listing recent episodes, fetching transcripts, searching episodes, and providing feedback. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Four tools cover the core functionalities of a podcast server (list, search, transcript, feedback) without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set provides essential operations for browsing and retrieving podcast transcripts, plus user feedback. No obvious missing operations for the intended domain.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_latest_episodesGet Latest EpisodesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return the most recent transcript-ready episodes across the full podcast catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of episodes to return. Must be between 1 and 50. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of episodes returned. |
| episodes | Yes | Matching transcript-ready episodes. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that episodes are 'transcript-ready' but doesn't disclose ordering or edge cases, so it adds moderate value beyond annotations.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the key action and scope.
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?
With a single parameter fully documented in the schema and an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It could mention ordering but is otherwise complete.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'limit' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns the most recent transcript-ready episodes across the full podcast catalog, with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_transcript and search_episodes.
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 usage as a quick listing tool for recent episodes with transcripts, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when to use search_episodes for filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_transcriptGet TranscriptARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch a bounded transcript chunk for a specific episode using its show and episode GUIDs. Use next_cursor to continue reading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Zero-based character offset into the transcript. Use the `next_cursor` returned by a prior get_transcript call to fetch the next chunk. | |
| max_chars | No | Target maximum number of transcript characters to return. Chunks prefer natural boundaries and may be slightly shorter. Must be between 100 and 20000. | |
| show_guid | Yes | Podcast show GUID returned by `search_episodes` or `get_latest_episodes`. | |
| episode_guid | Yes | Episode GUID returned by `search_episodes` or `get_latest_episodes`. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Transcript chunk text. |
| char_end | Yes | Exclusive zero-based end offset of this chunk in the complete transcript. |
| has_more | Yes | Whether another get_transcript call is needed to continue reading. |
| show_guid | Yes | Podcast show GUID requested by the client. |
| char_start | Yes | Inclusive zero-based start offset of this chunk in the complete transcript. |
| next_cursor | No | Cursor to pass to the next get_transcript call, or null at the end. |
| total_chars | Yes | Total character count of the complete transcript text. |
| episode_guid | Yes | Podcast episode GUID requested by the client. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by explaining the bounded chunk retrieval and cursor-based continuation, which are behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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 composed of two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination hint is provided succinctly.
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 presence of an output schema and fully documented input schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to paginate. No further context is needed.
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 does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; it only reiterates the cursor usage.
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 fetches a bounded transcript chunk for a specific episode using show and episode GUIDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_latest_episodes, search_episodes, and give_feedback which serve different purposes.
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 explicitly says to use 'next_cursor' to continue reading, providing pagination guidance. It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the purpose is singular and clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
give_feedbackGive FeedbackAInspect
Send structured feedback about bugs, missing data, unclear behavior, or feature requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | No | Optional follow-up contact details (e.g. email address, handle, or preferred channel) the server team can use if they address the feedback or have clarifying questions. Only provide with user consent; leave empty to remain anonymous. | |
| feedback | Yes | Feedback for the server team. Include the problem, missing capability, or suggested improvement without sensitive user data. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Feedback persistence status. |
| message | Yes | Human-readable result summary. |
| feedback_id | Yes | Stable feedback identifier. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that contact information should only be provided with user consent, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any other side effects or outcomes.
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 is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary, and it avoids 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?
For a simple feedback tool with two parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and types of feedback. It is adequate, though it could mention the expected response or that feedback is stored.
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%, but the description adds value by including the consent requirement for the 'contact' parameter, which is not present in the schema description. This enhances the agent's understanding of proper usage.
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 ('Send structured feedback') and explicitly lists the categories of feedback (bugs, missing data, unclear behavior, feature requests). This differentiates it from sibling tools which focus on retrieving episodes and transcripts.
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 usage for reporting issues or suggestions, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_episodesSearch EpisodesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search indexed podcast episodes by keyword or show name and return the show/episode GUIDs needed for transcript retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of episodes to return. Must be between 1 and 50. | |
| query | No | Optional search keywords matched against indexed episode content. Use people, topics, companies, or phrases. | |
| podcast_name | No | Optional podcast title or internal label to narrow results to a specific show. | |
| published_within_hours | No | Filter episodes published in the past X hours. Maximum 168 hours (1 week). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of episodes returned. |
| episodes | Yes | Matching transcript-ready episodes. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond stating it searches indexed episodes. No contradiction with annotations.
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 conveys the core functionality without waste. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.
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 presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but could mention sorting or search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching) for completeness.
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?
All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 indexed podcast episodes by keyword or show name and returns GUIDs needed for transcript retrieval. It is specific with a verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_latest_episodes and get_transcript.
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 usage for finding episodes and retrieving GUIDs, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_episodes. It does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites.
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!