Dynamoi

Prepare Release Handoff

dynamoi_prepare_distribution_release

Destructive

Prepare metadata, tracks and proposed splits for artist review in a private expiring web form. Does not submit a release, attest rights, accept agreements or invite collaborators.

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": {
      "artistId": "<artistId>",
      "desiredReleaseDate": "<desiredReleaseDate>",
      "hasCollaborators": "<hasCollaborators>",
      "labelName": "<labelName>",
      "notes": "<notes>",
      "releaseTitle": "<releaseTitle>",
      "releaseType": "<releaseType>",
      "splits": "<splits>",
      "tracks": "<tracks>"
    },
    "name": "dynamoi_prepare_distribution_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	Yes
`splits`	Yes
`tracks`	Yes
`artistId`	Yes
`labelName`	Yes
`releaseType`	Yes
`releaseTitle`	Yes
`hasCollaborators`	Yes
`desiredReleaseDate`	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.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful context that output is a private, expiring web form and enumerates the mutations it deliberately does not perform. However, it never explains what the destructive flag means here (e.g., overwriting an existing release draft) or whether the form can be regenerated.

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, zero filler. The positive scope is stated first and the exclusions follow, which is the right front-loading for a staging tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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 private/expiring form detail is a real addition. Still, for a 9-required-parameter destructive mutation with no schema documentation, the description leaves too much about correct invocation unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 required parameters, so the description carries the whole burden and largely fails. It gestures at 'metadata, tracks and proposed splits' but says nothing about critical semantics: whether sharePercent must total 100, ISRC format expectations, valid releaseType values, or date format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (prepare) with three named resources (metadata, tracks, proposed splits) and a concrete output target (private expiring web form). It effectively carves itself away from dynamoi_apply_for_distribution via the 'does not submit a release' clause, though it doesn't name that sibling directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The negative clause ('does not submit a release, attest rights, accept agreements or invite collaborators') implies this is a pre-submission staging step, but the description never explicitly says when to call it or that apply_for_distribution is the follow-up. Usage must be inferred.

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.