labelhead-artist-momentum
Server Details
Trending hip-hop artist momentum scores across four cultural dimensions.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- paperclipai/paperclip
- GitHub Stars
- 44,840
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 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: individual lookup, methodology explanation, and trending list. No overlap exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_, get_, get_).
With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but covers the core functionality for artist momentum queries and methodology explanation.
The tool set covers the main use cases (lookup, list, explain), though missing comparison or historical trend tools is a minor gap.
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_artist_momentumAInspect
Look up the current momentum score and signals for a specific artist by name. Returns the full three-dimensional score breakdown and notable signals driving their momentum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist_name | Yes | Artist name to look up (e.g. 'Doechii', 'Kendrick Lamar', 'GloRilla') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-like operation ('Look up') and describes the return content, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the artist name is not found.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient for the content.
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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned (score breakdown and signals). It does not specify exact return format but is sufficient for a basic lookup tool.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'artist_name', including examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 the tool looks up momentum score and signals for a specific artist by name. It distinguishes from siblings: 'get_scoring_explainer' explains what scores mean, and 'get_trending_artists' returns a list, so this tool is for individual artist lookup.
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 checking a specific artist's momentum, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or provide any exclusions or guidance on prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_scoring_explainerAInspect
Returns a detailed explanation of LabelHead's three-dimensional artist scoring methodology. Use this when you need to understand how composite scores are calculated, what each dimension measures, and how to interpret momentum labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a 'detailed explanation' but does not specify the format or structure of the output, which is somewhat vague for a read operation.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description perfectly covers what the tool does and when to use it. No gaps remain.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds meaningful context about what the explanation covers (composite scores, dimensions, momentum labels), exceeding the baseline.
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 returns a detailed explanation of LabelHead's three-dimensional artist scoring methodology, specifying composite scores, dimensions, and momentum labels. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_artist_momentum and get_trending_artists.
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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to understand...' providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would strengthen the guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trending_artistsAInspect
Returns the current list of trending hip-hop and rap artists ranked by LabelHead's composite momentum score. Each artist is scored across three dimensions: Acceleration (30-day streaming/social velocity), Cultural Gravity (press velocity, playlist adds, sync placements), and Longevity (catalog depth and retention). Use this to identify which artists are building genuine momentum right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of artists to return (max 10, default 10) | |
| min_composite | No | Minimum composite score filter (0–100) | |
| momentum_label | No | Filter by momentum label |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains scoring dimensions and that it returns a current list, implying a snapshot. Does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or side effects, but as a read operation it is minimally adequate.
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?
Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states the core purpose. Subsequent sentences add valuable context. Extremely concise and front-loaded.
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 list retrieval with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoring logic, and use case. Missing details about return value structure (e.g., fields included, sort order) but sufficient for agent selection.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. Description does not add extra parameter context beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 it returns a list of trending hip-hop/rap artists ranked by a composite momentum score. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_artist_momentum and get_scoring_explainer by focusing on the list retrieval rather than individual checks or explanations.
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 provides a clear use case ('identify which artists are building genuine momentum right now') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives. It is sufficient for typical usage.
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!