Lightning FM의 음악 카탈로그를 위한 MCP 서버 — 에이전트에서 트랙을 검색하고, 아티스트를 조회하고, 스테이션에서 현재 방송 중인 것을 확인할 수 있습니다.
별도의 에이전트 API는 없습니다. 이 서버는 인간 클라이언트가 읽는 것과 정확히 동일한 것을 읽습니다: 공개 Nostr 릴레이의 kind 31337 트랙 이벤트와 kind 0 프로필, 공개 Blossom 서버의 오디오와 이미지, 그리고 스테이션이 트랙이 변경될 때마다 게시하는 kind 30311 라이브 활동 이벤트입니다. 모든 트랙은 아티스트 자신의 키로 서명됩니다 — 이것은 플랫폼이 에이전트를 위해 유지 관리하는 선별된 하위 집합이 아니라 정식 카탈로그입니다.
MCP 클라이언트의 서버 구성에 추가하세요. Claude Code 또는 Claude Desktop의 경우:
{
"mcpServers": {
"lightning-fm": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "lightning-fm-mcp"]
}
}
}설치가 필요 없고, API 키도, 계정도 필요 없습니다. 기본적으로 relay.lightning.fm과 media.lightning.fm에 연결됩니다 — 다른 곳을 지정하려면 구성을 참조하세요.
Related MCP server: Maximum Sats MCP
search_catalog — 전체 카탈로그에 대한 자유 텍스트 검색 및 장르/태그 필터. 모든 필터를 비우면 최신순으로 탐색합니다.
get_artist — 표시 이름(부분 일치), hex pubkey 또는 npub로 아티스트를 조회합니다. 프로필과 전체 음반 목록을 반환합니다.
get_now_playing — 현재 방송 중인 내용과 스트림 URL.
모든 환경 변수는 선택 사항입니다 — 기본값은 프로덕션을 가리킵니다. 여기에는 비밀이 없습니다. 이 서버는 읽기 전용이며 어떤 것도 서명하거나 게시하지 않습니다.
변수 | 기본값 | 설명 |
|
| 쉼표로 구분된 릴레이 URL 목록. relay.lightning.fm처럼 쓰기를 게이트하는 경우에만 여기에 릴레이를 추가하세요 — kind 31337은 Lightning FM 전용이 아니며, 제한 없는 공개 릴레이는 다른 앱의 트랙도 모두 반환합니다. |
|
| Blossom 서버의 오디오/이미지 해시가 확인되는 대상입니다. |
|
| 가져온 스냅샷이 다음 도구 호출에서 릴레이를 다시 쿼리하기 전에 재사용되는 시간입니다. |
npm install
npm run dev # runs src/index.ts directly via tsx
npm run build # tsc -> dist/src/nostr/track.ts는 station-server/src/catalog/track.ts 및 app-desktop/src-tauri/src/relay.rs의 kind 31337 파싱을 미러링합니다. 세 곳 모두 태그 이름이 일치해야 합니다 — 이것은 플랫폼의 공개 와이어 형식이며, 전체 문서는 lightning.fm/interop에서 확인할 수 있습니다.
MIT
Look up an artist by display name or Nostr pubkey (hex or npub) and return their profile plus every track they have published to Lightning FM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist | Yes | Artist display name (partial match ok), hex pubkey, or npub. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses accepted input formats (display name, hex, npub) and return contents (profile + every published track). It does not describe error handling or what happens on ambiguous matches, and the read-only nature is implied rather than explicit, so a 5 is not warranted.
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?
A single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action and target, then conveys return value without filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what will be returned (profile + tracks). It leaves a few edge cases unaddressed (e.g., ambiguous names, empty results), but the tool is simple enough that these are minor gaps.
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% and the schema already explains the parameter well (partial match ok, formats). The description essentially repeats that information without adding extra semantic context about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 a specific verb ('Look up'), the resource ('artist'), and the accepted identifiers (display name or Nostr pubkey), and further specifies that it returns the profile plus all published tracks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_catalog, so it stops short of a 5.
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 intended use is clear: when you need an artist's profile and tracks by name or pubkey, this is the tool. It does not explicitly address when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the current live activity (NIP-53, kind 30311) Lightning FM publishes on every track change: the track currently on air, the stream URL, and station status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the operation as a read, exposes the live/NIP-53 protocol detail, and states what information is returned. It does not mention failure modes, latency, or auth, but for a zero-parameter public read that is a minor gap.
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?
The description is a single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds protocol and return details. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or fluff.
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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description needs to explain what the tool returns and does, and it does so concretely (track, stream URL, station status). It could slightly improve by noting what happens when no track is currently on air, but the station status detail partially covers that.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema holds no parameter information for the description to enhance. According to the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a Strong case: nothing is missing.
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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('current live activity ... Lightning FM publishes'), and the exact data elements returned (track, stream URL, station status). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search-oriented tools like search_catalog and get_artist by focusing on live, current state rather than catalog 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 says it reads current live activity and the track currently on air, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'current' vs. search distinction is strong enough that an agent should route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search or browse Lightning FM's Nostr-native music catalog (kind 31337 track events, fetched live from wss://relay.lightning.fm). Every result is signed by the artist's own Nostr key — this is the canonical catalog, not a curated subset. Leave all filters empty to browse the whole catalog, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Match a single free-form keyword tag. | |
| genre | No | Exact or partial genre match, case-insensitive. | |
| limit | No | Max tracks to return (default 20, max 100). | |
| query | No | Free-text match against title, artist name, album, genre, and description. |
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 discloses the live-fetching behavior, the Nostr signature guarantee, the canonical nature of the data, and the default ordering. It does not mention potential latency, relay availability, or result shape, but for a search tool the disclosed traits are substantive and useful.
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?
The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently adds key contextual facts (live source, signed results, canonical scope, browse behavior). Every sentence earns its place.
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 search/browse tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, data source, trust properties, and default ordering. It is missing explicit return-format details and error behavior, but the schema covers parameters and the description gives enough context for correct invocation.
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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds one meaningful behavioral hint—that leaving all filters empty browses the whole catalog—but does not add meaning for individual parameters beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Search or browse') and resource ('Lightning FM's Nostr-native music catalog'), and further distinguishes it by specifying the event kind (31337) and the live relay source. This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling tools get_artist and get_now_playing, which focus on singular or current-state data.
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?
It gives clear usage context: filters can be left empty to browse the entire catalog newest first, and the catalog is live and canonical rather than curated. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5get_artistget_now_playingsearch_catalogScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose: searching the catalog, looking up an artist, and reading live now-playing data. There is no practical overlap in what an agent would select them for.
All three tools follow a clear verb_noun convention: search_catalog, get_artist, get_now_playing. The naming pattern is predictable and consistent.
Three tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a read-only music catalog API. Each tool covers a distinct high-level user need without unnecessary bloat.
The core domain is covered: catalog browsing/search, artist lookup with tracks, and live playback status. A direct track-by-ID detail lookup is a minor gap, but the other tools can work around it through search or artist queries.
Find Bizzy radio stations, read station cards and public author information. Read-only; no playback.
Generate full songs with vocals, instrumentals and sound effects from text. One server for Suno, Google Lyria, Mureka, MiniMax, ACE-Step, YuE and ElevenLabs. Your agent can quote the credit cost before generating, start a song, wait for it to finish and return download links. Sign in with OAuth; optional daily credit caps; retries never charge twice.
Public music-rights directory: who wrote and owns a song, its ISWC/ISRC/IPI, and licensing asks
Search, analyze, and discover commercially released music using sonic intelligence.
