Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_get_section_songs

Read-only

Retrieve song requests for an event section with requester info, like counts, must-play/do-not-play flags, comments, and streaming links. Filter by text, flags, or sort by likes, creation date, or title.

Instructions

List the songs requested in a section, with who added each, like counts, must-play / do-not-play flags, comments, and streaming links. Sort by likesCount, createdAt, or title.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFilter songs by text.
skipNoNumber of items to skip, for paging (default 0).
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; "full" returns Vibo's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Vibo fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.
limitNoMax items to return (default 20).
eventIdYesEvent id.
isFlaggedNoFilter to do-not-play / flagged songs.
sectionIdYesSection id (from vibo_list_sections).
sortFieldNo
isMustPlayNo
sortDirectionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; \"full\" returns Vibo's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which Vibo fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.5.3
  3. Removedv1.4.3
  4. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the read-only nature, and the description's 'List' wording aligns with that. The description does not reveal additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or response shape beyond the parameter docs, though it also introduces no contradictions.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the important return fields. It contains no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key returned fields and available sort keys. It does not mention output paging metadata or default response shape, but the view and limit parameter descriptions cover some of that context.

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?

The schema describes most parameters, and the description adds useful meaning by naming the sortable fields (likesCount, createdAt, title) and mentioning must-play/do-not-play flags. However, sortDirection and isMustPlay lack schema descriptions and are not clarified further in the description.

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 operation: listing songs requested in a section, and enumerates the returned data such as who added each song, like counts, flags, comments, and streaming links. This unambiguously distinguishes it from nearby mutation tools like vibo_add_song_to_section or vibo_remove_song_from_section.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and even mentions sortable fields, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as vibo_list_section_song_ideas or vibo_search_songs. The only implicit guidance is the sectionId parameter pointing to vibo_list_sections.

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