Skip to main content
Glama
Venut-Technologies

engine-dj-mcp

by Venut-Technologies
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get tracks by id

get_tracks
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete track metadata for given IDs in requested order, with optional library selection via UUID or path.

Instructions

Fetch full metadata for specific track ids, in the order requested. With more than one library connected, pass library (a uuid or path from list_libraries, either the ~/... form or the absolute one) to choose which one; the default is the supported library with the most tracks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYes
fieldsNo
libraryNoWhich library to use: either the uuid or the path reported by list_libraries (the reported ~/... form is accepted, as is the absolute path). Omit it to use the supported library holding the most tracks. A READ may always omit it. A WRITE may omit it only when a single supported library is connected: with two or more, a write refuses with ambiguous_library listing them, since the choice decides which disk changes; ask the user which, then pass it here. A library copied onto another drive keeps its uuid, so a uuid can name two connected libraries: a write naming such a uuid refuses with ambiguous_library as well. Pass the path to write to one of them.
redact_pathsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.17.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the default library selection rule and the library parameter's ambiguity handling, which is not in the annotations. It does not disclose the redact_paths default behavior, but the schema carries that.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the library nuance is confined to the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's core purpose and the complex library parameter well, but it leaves the 'fields' and 'redact_paths' behavior unexplained, and the return format ('full metadata') is vague. Given the annotations and schema provide partial context, the description is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 only 25% (only 'library' has a schema description). The tool description essentially repeats the library guidance already in the schema and adds nothing about 'ids', 'fields', or 'redact_paths'. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage on the other three parameters.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('full metadata for specific track ids') and adds a scoping detail ('in the order requested'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_playlist_tracks, which fetches by playlist, and search_tracks, which searches.

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 usage by specifying 'specific track ids', and it gives library-selection guidance, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear for library selection but absent for tool selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools