Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@RedPanal MCP Server list the most recent audio files"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Este proyecto implementa un servidor MCP (Model Context Protocol) que permite interactuar con la API de RedPanal para listar, consultar detalles, descargar y subir audios.
Python 3.8 o superior
Poetry para la gestión de dependencias
Una cuenta en RedPanal (solo necesaria para subir audios)
Related MCP server: Audio File MCP App
Clona este repositorio:
git clone <URL_DEL_REPO>
cd redpanal-mcp-serverInstala las dependencias:
poetry installCrea un archivo .env en la raíz del proyecto con tus credenciales de RedPanal (solo necesarias para subir audios):
REDPANAL_USER=tu_usuario
REDPANAL_PASSWORD=tu_contraseñaUtilizar con cliente desktop LLM como Claude (o equivalente)
y configurar servidor mcp por ejemplo en claude_desktop_config.json agregar:
"redpanal": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"$YOUR_PATH/redpanal-mcp-server",
"run",
"mcp_redpanal.py"
]
},list_audios(genre: str = None, tag: str = None, page: int = 1, page_size: int = 10)Devuelve una lista de audios de RedPanal. Puedes filtrar por género, etiqueta, página y tamaño de página.
get_audio_detail(audio_id: int)Devuelve los detalles de un audio específico por su ID.
upload_audio(
file_path: str,
name: str,
description: str,
use_type: str,
genre: str,
instrument: str,
tags: list
)Sube un archivo de audio a RedPanal. Requiere autenticación (usuario y contraseña en el .env).
La subida de audios requiere que el usuario tenga permisos en RedPanal.
El servidor utiliza la API pública de RedPanal para las consultas.
Downloads a sound from RedPanal.org by its url and converts it to a WAV Returns info_txt plus a JSON dump of a list with sound info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| soundfile_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions downloading, converting to WAV, and returning info_txt plus JSON, but omits side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. Critical gaps for a mutation-like operation.
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?
Two concise sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the action and result. However, could be slightly more structured by separating functionality and return value.
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?
With a single parameter and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and return format, but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, and constraints. A download tool might benefit from mentioning file size limits or required permissions.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'by its url' without clarifying expected format (e.g., full URL, path only), validity, or examples. The schema provides the parameter name and title but no description, so the description adds minimal extra meaning.
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?
Description clearly states the tool downloads a sound from RedPanal.org and converts to WAV. The verb 'downloads' and resource 'sound' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings which likely handle listing, details, and uploading.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_audio_detail or list_audios. The description implies use for downloading and converting but offers no when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get audio details by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audio_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'get' implying read-only, but does not disclose what details are returned, authentication needs, or any side effects.
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?
Very concise with one sentence, front-loaded verb. No wasted words, though could benefit from brief context on return value.
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?
Lacks output schema and does not describe what 'details' means. Incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data; agent cannot infer what fields are available.
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 coverage is 0%; description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'audio_id' and type integer. Does not explain how to obtain the ID or its format.
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?
Description explicitly states it gets audio details by ID, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like download_sample, list_audios, and upload_audio.
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?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives, such as list_audios for browsing. Only implies usage when an ID is known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List audios from RedPanal with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| genre | No | ||
| tag | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose behavior such as pagination, response format, authentication needs, or read-only nature. Only mentions 'optional filters', leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it may be overly minimal for a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation. It is not verbose, but earns a 3 for being adequate in length.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits pagination details, response structure, and any interaction with sibling tools. Fails to provide a complete picture.
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 0%. Description only says 'with optional filters', not explaining each parameter (genre, tag, page, page_size). Does not add meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'audios', and source 'RedPanal', with mention of optional filters. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_audio_detail or download_sample, leaving room for ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage cues beyond stating optional filters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Upload an audio file to RedPanal (requires auth).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| use_type | Yes | ||
| genre | Yes | ||
| instrument | Yes | ||
| tags | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement but nothing else: no mention of side effects (e.g., resource creation, overwrite behavior), rate limits, or what happens on duplicate files. This is insufficient for an upload tool.
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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It lacks structure—no front-loading of critical usage instructions. It earns its place but doesn't do enough.
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?
Given 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return value, parameter roles, or how to successfully invoke the tool. Essential context is missing.
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 has 7 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds zero information about parameter meanings, valid values, formats, or constraints. The agent has no way to correctly populate inputs.
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 the action ('upload an audio file') and the target platform ('RedPanal'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools (download_sample, get_audio_detail, list_audios) which perform different operations. However, it lacks details on what 'upload' entails (e.g., creating vs replacing).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to download instead). No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description only states the action without any conditional advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: download_sample downloads and converts a sound, get_audio_detail retrieves details by ID, list_audios lists with filters, and upload_audio uploads. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., download_sample, get_audio_detail, list_audios, upload_audio). No mixing of conventions.
With 4 tools, the set is concise and not excessive. It covers core operations for a sound library, though it is on the minimal side but still appropriate for the scope.
The tool set covers listing, detail retrieval, upload, and download, but lacks update and delete operations for audio items, which are notable gaps for full lifecycle management.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Create, inspect, and manage Wubble music, speech, voice, and sound-effect requests through MCP.
Search speech in podcasts, government meetings, and your own audio: speakers, entities, timestamps.
AI-manageable audio CDN: upload, transcode, normalize, stream & deliver audio, plus grounded docs.
Your Plaud recordings in natural language: list recordings, read speaker-attributed transcripts and
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/audio-research-projects/redpanal-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
