Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bluecolumn-mcp

bluecolumn-mcp

by bluecolumnconsulting-lgtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sound_analyze

Detect and index non-speech audio events such as alarms, crashes, or animal sounds. Makes these events searchable for later retrieval.

Instructions

NEW (Audio Intelligence): Detect and index non-speech audio events.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "audio_id": "<audio_id>"
    },
    "name": "sound_analyze"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
audio_idYes
search_forNo
detect_eventsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. 'Detect and index' implies state changes (indexing), but there is no mention of required permissions, reversibility, what happens to existing indices, or any rate/limit behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely writes data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence and is concise, but it includes a 'NEW (Audio Intelligence)' label that adds no value. It is appropriately short, but the brevity sacrifices informative content, making it only minimally effective.

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?

This is a complex audio analysis tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description is only one sentence and fails to explain return values, how indexing works, or the role of each parameter, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (audio_id, search_for, detect_events). The agent has no semantic guidance beyond parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: detecting and indexing non-speech audio events. It distinguishes itself from siblings like music_analyze by explicitly targeting non-speech audio.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies use for non-speech audio event detection, but it doesn't contrast with music_analyze or audio_recall, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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