Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Podcast MCP

Podcast MCP

by calebn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_review_share_tool

Generate a shareable review link for a podcast version, set viewer, commenter, or editor roles, and optionally issue an MCP URL with matching access controls.

Instructions

Create a review share URL (Anyone with the link by default).

role: review-link role, as in Google Docs. viewer views and plays; commenter also comments and suggests edits that wait for an editor or the host; editor also edits directly and approves or rejects suggestions. with_mcp: also mint an MCP URL ({base}/mcp/{token}/mcp) with the role's powers. general_access: link (default) or restricted (ACL + sign-in). require_sign_in: force login even on link shares. invite_emails: comma-separated emails to add to the ACL.

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": {
      "version_id": "<version_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_review_share_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNocommenter
with_mcpNo
version_idYes
project_pathNo
invite_emailsNo
general_accessNolink
public_base_urlNohttp://127.0.0.1:8765
require_sign_inNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / capabilities
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "play,comment,reply,action",
-  "title": "Capabilities",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_path / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • removedInput schema / properties / role / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • changedInput schema / properties / role / default
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +"commenter"
    • addedInput schema / properties / role / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "project_path",
-  "version_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "version_id"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses defaults ('Anyone with the link by default', general_access link vs restricted, require_sign_in forcing login) and the side effect of minting an MCP URL when with_mcp is set. It stays silent on required permissions, error/conflict behavior, and what happens when the version_id does not exist, so it is only partially transparent for a mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a tight per-parameter list with no filler. Slightly terse and list-like rather than prose, but every line earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For an 8-parameter, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers the access-control parameters well but leaves the required version_id unexplained and never states permission prerequisites or failure behavior, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the five semantics-heavy parameters (role, with_mcp, general_access, require_sign_in, invite_emails) with real meaning — notably a genuine role taxonomy. However, it omits the one required parameter (version_id) entirely, plus project_path and public_base_url (whose localhost default is surprising), leaving invocation-critical semantics undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a review share URL', which unambiguously identifies the operation. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its close siblings (publish_review_version_tool, list_review_versions_tool, set_active_review_version_tool), so the agent must infer the relationship between sharing and publishing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. Usage is only loosely implied by the notion that a review version must first exist before a share URL is created. The agent is left to infer that this is a post-publish step.

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