Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
musicbrainz-mcp

musicbrainz-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Submit a user rating to MusicBrainz

musicbrainz_submit_rating
DestructiveIdempotent

Submit your 0–100 rating for a MusicBrainz entity via OAuth; confirmation is required first, and 0 removes your rating.

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

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only give the generic safety profile (destructive, idempotent, open-world). The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the required OAuth scope, the two-phase preview/confirmToken protocol, and the explicit guarantee that 'nothing is sent before confirmation', plus that rating 0 removes the rating rather than setting a value.

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?

The action, auth requirement, and confirmation semantics are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the density is justified for a two-phase write. The trailing attribution line ('Data from MusicBrainz... the open music encyclopedia') is boilerplate that does not earn its place for this tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, open-world write with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: authorization scope, confirmation protocol, and the destructive edge case of rating=0. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100%, including enum values, MBID pattern, and the 0–100/star mapping, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description largely restates the rating scale and confirmToken rules already documented in the schema, adding only the 'your own rating' framing. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set YOUR rating for a MusicBrainz entity') and scopes it to the calling user's own rating, which separates it from siblings like musicbrainz_submit_tags and musicbrainz_modify_collection. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use — OAuth with the `rating` scope — and the condition under which the confirmation path applies (elicitation-capable client vs. token fallback). It does not name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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