Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

musicbrainz-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Submit a user rating to MusicBrainz

musicbrainz_submit_rating
Idempotent

Submit your rating for a MusicBrainz entity on a 0–100 scale (1–5 stars), requiring user confirmation before sending.

Instructions

Set YOUR rating for a MusicBrainz entity (needs OAuth: MUSICBRAINZ_OAUTH_* with the rating scope). Rating is 0–100 (MusicBrainz shows it as 1–5 stars in steps of 20; 0 removes your rating). Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Nothing is sent before confirmation. Data from MusicBrainz (https://musicbrainz.org), the open music encyclopedia.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mbidYesMBID of the entity to rate
entityYesEntity type to rate
ratingYesRating 0–100 (0 removes; 20/40/60/80/100 = 1–5 stars)
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false), the description reveals critical behavior: OAuth requirement, the 0–100 scale mapping to 1–5 stars, the two confirmation modes (native prompt vs confirmToken fallback), and the guarantee that 'Nothing is sent before confirmation.' This adds substantial value over the annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then moves to auth, scale, confirmation mechanics, and data source. Every sentence contributes; there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essentials for correct invocation: auth scope, rating semantics, confirmation behavior, and the two-step fallback. It does not specify the success response format or error cases, but given no output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the provided information is sufficient for reliable selection and invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the star/point mapping, that 0 removes the rating, and the full behavior of confirmToken (never on first call, never invented, never reused). This enriches the schema's parameter meanings.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set YOUR rating for a MusicBrainz entity.' It clearly states the action (set rating), the target (MusicBrainz entity), and the scope (your own rating). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like musicbrainz_submit_tags and musicbrainz_modify_collection without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context is provided: the tool is for setting a user rating, requires OAuth with the 'rating' scope, and involves a confirmation flow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings that an agent can infer correct usage.

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