Skip to main content
Glama

Librivox

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Tracks

tracks
Read-onlyIdempotent

LibriVox free public-domain audiobooks — the individual chapter tracks of one LibriVox recording project, given its project_id. Each track returns its section number, title, playtime, the volunteer reader who recorded it, file size and the direct MP3 URL. Answers which chapters are in a LibriVox audiobook and where to stream or download each one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tracksNoList of audio tracks for the audiobook

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "project_id": 1234
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "tracks": {
+      "description": "List of audio tracks for the audiobook",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "date_recorded": {
+            "description": "Recording date",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "length": {
+            "description": "Track length in seconds",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "narrator": {
+            "description": "Narrator name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Track title",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "track_number": {
+            "description": "Track number",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "url_m4b": {
+            "description": "M4B download URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url_mp3": {
+            "description": "MP3 download URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url_ogg": {
+            "description": "OGG download URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url_project": {
+            "description": "Project URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that each track includes specific fields and a direct MP3 URL, which is useful behavioral context about the return data. However, it does not disclose any edge cases, authentication requirements, or rate limiting, leaving the description slightly below the level of rich behavioral explanation.

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?

The description is three sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and detail in the following two. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no redundant filler. Each sentence contributes to understanding.

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 only one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential function and expected data. It even enumerates the track fields, which is more than necessary given the output schema. The tool is simple, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 only defines project_id as a required number with no description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that project_id identifies a LibriVox recording project, but it does not elaborate on how to find the ID or what constitutes a valid value. Given the low schema coverage, the description compensates only minimally.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves individual chapter tracks for a given LibriVox project, identified by project_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audiobook' and 'audiobooks' by focusing on tracks rather than the overall record. However, it uses 'answers' rather than a more direct verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', making the action slightly less immediate.

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 description implies the tool is used when you have a project_id and need track-level details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'audiobook' or 'audiobooks'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only contextual rather than direct.

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

All Librivox toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes several unrelated domains (LibriVox, Pipeworx data lookup, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions), and within those domains there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all route to the same 5,798 tools, and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk/bet_research all scan prediction-market opportunities. An agent can easily pick the wrong tool when the same question fits several of them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly lowercase snake_case, but the patterns are inconsistent across domains: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-first (audiobook, tracks, polymarket_edges), and pluralization varies (audiobook vs audiobooks, authors vs tracks). The Pipeworx family is internally consistent, but the overall set has no unified convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for a server named Librivox, and only 4 of them (audiobook, audiobooks, authors, tracks) actually relate to LibriVox. The remaining ~31 tools (Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility) make the count far exceed what the server name and apparent purpose suggest.

Completeness2/5

For a LibriVox-focused server, the tool surface is thin: search and fetch audiobooks, search authors, and list tracks, but no browse by genre, no reader/search-by-reader, no language filter, no author detail endpoint. The Pipeworx side is quite comprehensive, but it does not make up for the gap relative to the server's stated identity.

Resources