MCP Audio Tweaker

by DeveloperZo

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'advanced_process' and 'process_audio_file' could cause confusion since both handle audio processing operations. The descriptions help differentiate them (advanced vs. single-file FFmpeg-based), but the overlap in core functionality creates some ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'apply_preset', 'batch_process_audio', 'layer_sounds'). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set, with no deviations in style.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for an audio processing server. Each tool appears to serve a specific and useful function in the domain, from basic processing to advanced features like harmonics and variations, without feeling bloated or thin.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core audio processing workflows well, including single and batch processing, presets, sound layering, and queue management. A minor gap exists in lacking explicit tools for audio analysis or metadata handling, but agents can likely work around this with the provided operations.
Average 2.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Apply advanced audio processing' implies a transformative operation, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether processing is destructive to the original file, computational requirements, supported audio formats, error handling, or typical processing time. The description mentions effect categories but not how they're applied or sequenced.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning by listing the four processing categories. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the tool's primary function from its capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex audio processing tool with 8 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure, processing metadata, error messages), doesn't address performance characteristics, and provides minimal guidance for a tool with substantial parameter complexity and multiple sibling alternatives.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by naming the processing categories (pitch, spectral, dynamics, spatial) that correspond to optional parameter objects, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors when optional params are omitted, or processing order.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('Apply advanced audio processing') and resources ('audio'), listing key processing categories (pitch shifting, spectral processing, dynamics, spatial effects). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'process_audio_file' or 'apply_preset', which likely handle similar audio processing tasks.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'process_audio_file', 'apply_preset', and 'batch_process_audio', there's no indication whether this is for complex multi-effect processing, real-time vs batch operations, or when simpler tools might suffice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what happens if the output file exists (beyond the 'overwrite' parameter), performance characteristics, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens during processing, error handling, or performance expectations. The mention of 'optimized for specific use cases' is too vague to be helpful without elaboration.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what the presets do, provide examples, or clarify relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'apply' and the resource 'predefined audio processing preset', specifying it's optimized for specific use cases. It distinguishes from siblings like 'process_audio_file' by focusing on preset application rather than general processing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 like 'process_audio_file' or 'advanced_process'. The description mentions 'optimized for specific use cases' but doesn't specify what those cases are or when to choose this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'apply audio processing operations' which implies mutation/write operations, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether it processes files sequentially or in parallel, error handling, progress tracking, or resource usage. The mention of 'overwrite' parameter hints at destructive potential, but this isn't elaborated in the description itself.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch processing tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'audio processing operations' entail, how results are returned, error behavior, or performance characteristics. The context signals indicate complexity that isn't addressed in the minimal description.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'operations' object structure or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'apply' and resource 'audio processing operations to multiple files in a directory', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this batch processing tool from its sibling 'process_audio_file' (single-file processing), which would be needed for a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_audio_file' (for single files) or other audio processing siblings. It mentions 'multiple files in a directory' but doesn't specify thresholds, prerequisites, or exclusions for batch versus single-file processing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a destructive or safe process, what permissions might be required, or how errors are handled. The description lacks details on output behavior, file formats, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and method, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'harmonic variations' output looks like (e.g., file types, naming conventions), how the process works, or any prerequisites. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how the mix levels interact or what 'harmonic variations' entail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('create harmonic variations') and the method ('by adding octaves and musical intervals'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'generate_variations' or 'process_audio_file', which might have overlapping functionality in audio processing.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'generate_variations', 'process_audio_file', and 'advanced_process', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool generates variations but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, file formats, error handling, or output specifics (e.g., file naming, format). This is inadequate for a tool with 8 parameters and file operations, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, file operations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like file handling, output details, or error conditions. While concise, it fails to provide the completeness needed for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without additional context.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying variation generation. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'pitchRange' or 'spectralRange' interact or affect the output, so it relies entirely on the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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's purpose: 'Generate multiple variations of a sound from a single input'. It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('variations of a sound'), and outcome ('creating sound families'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_process_audio' or 'process_audio_file', which might have overlapping functionality.
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?
The description provides minimal usage guidance: 'perfect for creating sound families' suggests a use case but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_process_audio' or 'create_harmonics'. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'advanced blending and timing' but fails to detail critical aspects like file format requirements, performance constraints, error handling, or output characteristics. For a tool with 4 parameters and file operations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Layer multiple sounds together') and adds key details ('with advanced blending and timing') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, file operations, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent usage in a multi-tool audio processing context.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'blend' modes interact or the practical effects of 'delay' and 'pitch.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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's purpose as 'Layer multiple sounds together with advanced blending and timing,' which specifies the verb ('layer') and resource ('sounds') with additional context about capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_process_audio' or 'process_audio_file,' which may have overlapping audio processing functions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'apply_preset' or 'generate_variations,' leaving the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists presets, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, included fields like preset names and descriptions), behavioral traits, or usage context. For a tool with rich sibling tools and no structured support, this is inadequate.
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 has 100% description coverage, documenting the optional 'category' parameter with its enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior when no category is specified. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('audio processing presets') with their descriptions, making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'apply_preset' or 'process_audio_file' beyond the listing action.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing presets to exist, or compare it to sibling tools like 'apply_preset' for applying presets or 'process_audio_file' for processing with presets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Apply audio processing operations' and 'using FFmpeg', which hints at mutation and external tool usage, but doesn't specify critical behaviors like whether it modifies files in-place, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has performance constraints. For a tool with complex operations and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Apply audio processing operations to a single file using FFmpeg'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, error handling, or behavioral traits like file system interactions or FFmpeg dependencies. With rich input schema but missing critical context for a mutation tool, the description fails to provide enough information for safe and effective use.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for parameters like 'inputFile', 'outputFile', and 'overwrite', and nested objects for 'operations'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only vaguely references 'audio processing operations' without explaining the structure or purpose of the 'operations' object. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 action ('Apply audio processing operations') and resource ('to a single file using FFmpeg'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from siblings like 'advanced_process', 'batch_process_audio', or 'apply_preset', which likely offer similar or overlapping functionality. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'advanced_process', 'batch_process_audio', and 'apply_preset', an agent needs explicit direction on choosing this tool for single-file FFmpeg processing over others. The description implies usage for audio processing but offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, returns real-time or cached data, includes error states, or has rate limits. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on what the status includes (e.g., queue length, processing times, errors) or behavioral context. For a status tool, this leaves room for improvement in completeness.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for tools with zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current status of the audio processing queue'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_presets' or 'batch_process_audio', but the focus on queue status is specific enough to avoid confusion with those operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether audio processing must be active), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'process_audio_file' or 'advanced_process' in terms of queue monitoring versus processing actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-audio-tweaker MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeveloperZo/mcp-audio-tweaker/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeveloperZo/mcp-audio-tweaker)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-audio-tweaker MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeveloperZo/mcp-audio-tweaker/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeveloperZo/mcp-audio-tweaker)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DeveloperZo/mcp-audio-tweaker'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server