Dynamoi

Apply for Music Distribution

dynamoi_apply_for_distribution

DestructiveIdempotent

Submit an artist's application for Dynamoi music distribution after the user explicitly asks to apply and all five eligibility requirements are met. This records an application for manual review; it does not approve distribution, accept an agreement, submit a release, transfer rights, configure splits or tax forms, or deliver music to stores. All three valid ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country or territory codes, an adult signer attestation, confirmApplicationSubmission=true, and a concise userIntentSummary are required. Country, tax, payout, sanctions, and provider-delivery checks remain manual progression gates after intake; a valid code does not imply approval. Repeated submission is idempotent for an active application.

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": {
      "adultSignerAttestation": "<adultSignerAttestation>",
      "applicantCountry": "<applicantCountry>",
      "artistId": "<artistId>",
      "confirmApplicationSubmission": "<confirmApplicationSubmission>",
      "payoutCountry": "<payoutCountry>",
      "taxResidencyCountry": "<taxResidencyCountry>",
      "userIntentSummary": "<userIntentSummary>"
    },
    "name": "dynamoi_apply_for_distribution"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`artistId`	Yes
`payoutCountry`	Yes
`applicantCountry`	Yes
`userIntentSummary`	Yes
`taxResidencyCountry`	Yes
`adultSignerAttestation`	Yes
`confirmApplicationSubmission`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No
`data`	No
`kind`	No
`field`	No
`status`	Yes
`draftId`	No
`message`	No
`retryable`	No
`nextAction`	No
`failureStage`	No
`prerequisite`	No
`screeningResult`	No
`retryAfterSeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / code / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "ACCOUNT_READ_ONLY",
-  "INVALID_SPOTIFY_SOURCE",
-  "CAPABILITY_REQUIRED",
-  "INSUFFICIENT_SCOPE",
-  "STATE_CONFLICT",
-  "QUOTE_CHANGED",
-  "RATE_LIMITED",
-  "OUTPUT_INVALID",
-  "UNKNOWN_EFFECT"
-]New value: +[
+  "ACCOUNT_READ_ONLY",
+  "INVALID_SPOTIFY_SOURCE",
+  "CAPABILITY_REQUIRED",
+  "INSUFFICIENT_SCOPE",
+  "TENANT_ACCESS_DENIED",
+  "STATE_CONFLICT",
+  "QUOTE_CHANGED",
+  "RATE_LIMITED",
+  "OUTPUT_INVALID",
+  "UNKNOWN_EFFECT"
+]

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / draftId

Added value: +{
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / failureStage

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / screeningResult

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 20, 2026

addedInput schema / $schema

Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

addedOutput schema / $schema

Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / code

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "ACCOUNT_READ_ONLY",
+    "INVALID_SPOTIFY_SOURCE",
+    "CAPABILITY_REQUIRED",
+    "INSUFFICIENT_SCOPE",
+    "STATE_CONFLICT",
+    "QUOTE_CHANGED",
+    "RATE_LIMITED",
+    "OUTPUT_INVALID",
+    "UNKNOWN_EFFECT"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / field

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / nextAction

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "field": {
+      "maxLength": 120,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "enum": [
+        "provide_input",
+        "read_status",
+        "reconnect",
+        "handoff"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "maxLength": 240,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "kind"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / prerequisite

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 240,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / retryAfterSeconds

Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 86400,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / retryable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

AddedAug 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it frames the call as intake for manual review, clarifies that a valid country code does not imply approval, and lists country/tax/payout/sanctions/provider-delivery as post-intake progression gates. It also confirms the idempotency semantics for an active application, matching the annotation rather than contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and preconditions, then a negative scope sentence, then the requirements list. Dense but efficient; the only mild redundancy is restating the approval caveat twice ('does not approve distribution' and 'a valid code does not imply approval').

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers mutation semantics, mandatory flags, and manual gates. What it lacks is enumeration of the five eligibility requirements it points to and any note on what the recorded application contains or how it is retrieved afterward.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it specifies that the three country fields must be valid ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes, that adultSignerAttestation is an attestation (implying the boolean must be true), that confirmApplicationSubmission must be true, and that userIntentSummary should be concise. Only artistId is left uncharacterized, though its UUID format makes its meaning self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Submit an artist's application for Dynamoi music distribution' — and immediately scopes it against adjacent concepts (approval, agreement acceptance, release submission, rights transfer, splits/tax, store delivery). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like dynamoi_prepare_distribution_release or dynamoi_get_distribution_application without opening a schema.

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?

Gives two explicit preconditions: the user must explicitly ask to apply, and all five eligibility requirements must be met. It also enumerates what the tool is NOT for, which effectively rules out several sibling tools. The gap is that the 'five eligibility requirements' are referenced but not named, leaving the agent to discover them elsewhere before it can confirm eligibility.

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

All Dynamoi 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.