A
license-
qualityA
maintenancePrivacy-first audio intelligence: BPM, key, waveform. Audio never stored. Pay per second.
Last updated
MIT
Songs To Your Eyes — production music catalogue
Server Details
Search 18,594 production-music cues by mood, sound and exact runtime. Instant preview links.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
B3/5.0
Tool DescriptionsC
Average 3.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools are distinct, but get_track and list_versions both provide version listings, creating overlap. Also, fit_to_duration is essentially a specialized search, which may be confused with search_tracks despite the runtime focus.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent stye_verb_noun pattern in snake_case: fit_to_duration, get_track, list_versions, search_tracks. This is highly predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is a well-scoped count for a read-only music catalogue. Each tool serves a clear category of operation without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The catalogue surface covers the essential read operations: search, duration-specific search, track detail, and version listing. There are no write operations needed for this domain. The only gap is that search_tracks has no description, which may hinder discoverability, but the core workflows are complete.
Available Tools
4 toolsstye_fit_to_durationFind music that fits a runtimeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Find tracks that FIT A SPECIFIC RUNTIME — for a cut of known length.
Considers both tracks whose natural runtime is close to the target (fit='native') and
dedicated timed cutdowns such as a 30-second mix (fit='cutdown'). For cutdowns,
licence_ref identifies the cut itself — the exact asset to clear — while ref points at
the main mix that carries the description and preview. delta_s is how far the result
is from your target (negative = shorter).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | No | Optional sound brief, e.g. 'epic cinematic trailer'. | |
| limit | No | ||
| moods | No | Match ANY of these moods. | |
| has_vocals | No | true = vocal tracks only, false = instrumental only. | |
| target_seconds | Yes | The runtime to fill, in seconds — e.g. 30 for a 30-second spot. | |
| include_previews | No | Attach streaming preview links (15-min expiry). | |
| tolerance_seconds | No | Acceptable deviation. Default: 15% of target, minimum 2s. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the distinction between fit='native' and fit='cutdown', clarifies the roles of licence_ref and ref, and defines delta_s. This goes beyond annotations but does not cover every behavioral aspect like ordering or pagination.
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 two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately conveys the core action. The second paragraph efficiently explains the key distinction (native vs. cutdown) and the important fields (licence_ref, ref, delta_s) without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for explaining key result fields (fit, license_ref, ref, delta_s), which it does. However, it omits some context like sorting order, pagination, or how results are ordered relative to tolerance. For a focused search tool, this is a minor gap, so 4 is appropriate.
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 description coverage is 86%, meaning most input parameters (target_seconds, tolerance_seconds, moods, etc.) are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add new input parameter details but does explain output-related semantics (delta_s). Since the schema already handles parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Find tracks that FIT A SPECIFIC RUNTIME' which clearly states the verb (find) and resource (tracks) along with the specific purpose (duration matching). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stye_search_tracks by focusing on runtime fit rather than general search, and explicitly differentiates native vs. cutdown results.
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?
The description specifies the intended context: 'for a cut of known length.' This clarifies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative siblings (e.g., 'use stye_search_tracks for non-duration queries'). The implied usage is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stye_get_trackGet one track in fullARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Full detail for one track: metadata, editorial description, every available version (stems, cutdowns, alternate mixes), and a streamable watermarked preview link (expires in 15 minutes). The preview is an evaluation copy — licensing is arranged with the Songs To Your Eyes team.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | A track ref from any other tool's results. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting the preview link expires in 15 minutes and is an evaluation copy, with licensing arranged separately. This goes beyond structured annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value – what's included and the preview's temporary nature. No wasted words.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contents. It could mention error scenarios or the need for the ref to be valid, but the schema already hints at where ref comes from. Overall it's complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 input schema covers the single 'ref' parameter with 100% description coverage ('A track ref from any other tool's results'). The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so per the rubric baseline is 3.
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 full detail for a single track, enumerating specific content (metadata, editorial description, versions, preview link). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'one track' and comprehensive detail, setting it apart from search or version-list tools.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool – when you need comprehensive detail for a specific track – but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like stye_list_versions or stye_fit_to_duration. Context is clear but no exclusions or direct comparison are provided, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stye_list_versionsList a track's versionsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Every version of a cue: the main mix, timed cutdowns (15s/30s/60s...), alternate mixes (no-drums, underscore, instrumental...) and individual instrument stems.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Any track ref — main mix or one of its versions; the whole family is returned. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that passing any track ref returns the entire version family, and clarifies the types of versions included. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the raw annotations, though it omits potential details like ordering or pagination.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Every version of a cue') and uses parenthetical examples for clarity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and scannable.
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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned by enumerating version categories. It doesn't detail ordering, metadata, or response format, but given the tool's simplicity and the robust parameter description, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'ref', with a description that clarifies any track ref works and the whole family is returned. The tool description reinforces this by explaining what constitutes a version, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic definition.
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 title 'List a track's versions' clearly states the tool's function, and the description specifies the exact contents of the list (main mix, cutdowns, alternate mixes, stems). This distinguishes it from siblings like stye_search_tracks or stye_get_track, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or conditions under which listing versions is preferred over searching or fetching a single track, leaving the usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stye_search_tracksSearch the catalogueDRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | No | What the music should SOUND like and what it is for — mood, scene, instrumentation, narrative arc. E.g. 'tense investigative underscore that never resolves'. Put tempo/duration/vocals in the filters, not here. | |
| limit | No | Max results. | |
| moods | No | Match ANY of these moods, e.g. ['Tension','Mysterious']. | |
| energy | No | One of: low, low-building, moderate, building, high. | |
| genres | No | Match ANY of these genres, e.g. ['Trailer','Orchestral']. | |
| bpm_max | No | Maximum BPM. | |
| bpm_min | No | Minimum BPM. NOTE: ~54% of the catalogue has no BPM tag; a BPM filter silently excludes those tracks. | |
| has_vocals | No | true = lead-vocal tracks only, false = instrumental only, omit = both. | |
| instruments | No | Match ANY of these instruments, e.g. ['Piano','Strings']. | |
| vo_friendly | No | true = only tracks that leave space for voiceover. | |
| duration_max_s | No | Maximum runtime in seconds. | |
| duration_min_s | No | Minimum runtime in seconds. | |
| include_previews | No | Attach a streaming preview link to each result (slower; links expire in 15 minutes). |
Tool Definition Quality
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceSearch and license 217,000+ authentic vintage 8mm home movie clips from the 1930s-1980s. 6 tools: text search, clip details, visual similarity, rough-cut timeline builder, rights verification, and instant licensing via x402 USDC payments on Solana and Base. All footage is real archival film restored in 4K, no AI-generated content.Last updated1MIT
- Alicense-qualityFmaintenanceIntegrates with Freesound.org to enable searching, discovering, and previewing audio content such as sound effects and music loops. It provides detailed metadata and licensing information to support video editing and content creation workflows.Last updated5MIT
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables searching, downloading, and placing b-roll assets (images, stock video, etc.) onto an editor timeline in DaVinci Resolve, Premiere, or via universal formats.Last updated5