Skip to main content
Glama
cswkim

Discogs MCP Server

by cswkim

rate_release_in_user_collection

Assign a rating (1-5) to a specific music release within a user's Discogs collection folder to organize and evaluate personal music catalogs.

Instructions

Rate a release in a user's collection. The folder_id must be non-zero.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes
folder_idYes
release_idYes
instance_idYes
ratingNo

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool definition and handler (execute function) for 'rate_release_in_user_collection' that delegates to UserService.collection.rateRelease
    export const rateReleaseInUserCollectionTool: Tool<
      FastMCPSessionAuth,
      typeof UserCollectionReleaseRatingParamsSchema
    > = {
      name: 'rate_release_in_user_collection',
      description: `Rate a release in a user's collection. The folder_id must be non-zero.`,
      parameters: UserCollectionReleaseRatingParamsSchema,
      execute: async (args) => {
        try {
          const userService = new UserService();
          await userService.collection.rateRelease(args);
    
          return 'Release rated successfully';
        } catch (error) {
          throw formatDiscogsError(error);
        }
      },
    };
  • Zod input schema for rating a release in user collection (extends release deleted params with optional rating 1-5)
    export const UserCollectionReleaseRatingParamsSchema =
      UserCollectionReleaseDeletedParamsSchema.extend({
        rating: z.number().int().min(1).max(5).optional(),
      });
  • Registration of the tool in registerUserCollectionTools function
    server.addTool(rateReleaseInUserCollectionTool);
  • Core implementation in UserCollectionService: POST request to Discogs API to rate a specific release instance
    async rateRelease({
      username,
      folder_id,
      release_id,
      instance_id,
      ...body
    }: UserCollectionReleaseRatingParams): Promise<void> {
      try {
        await this.request<void>(
          `/${username}/collection/folders/${folder_id}/releases/${release_id}/instances/${instance_id}`,
          {
            method: 'POST',
            body,
          },
        );
      } catch (error) {
        if (isDiscogsError(error)) {
          throw error;
        }
    
        throw new Error(`Failed to rate release: ${String(error)}`);
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the folder_id constraint but doesn't describe what 'rating' actually does (e.g., whether it creates, updates, or replaces ratings), what permissions are needed, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the release isn't in the collection. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (4 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the operation's behavior, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description must compensate but only adds meaning for 'folder_id' (must be non-zero). It doesn't explain what 'username', 'release_id', 'instance_id', or 'rating' represent, their relationships, or why 'rating' is optional while others are required. This leaves most parameters 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 clearly states the action ('Rate') and the target ('a release in a user's collection'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'edit_release_rating' or 'get_release_rating_by_user', which appear to handle similar rating-related operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a constraint about folder_id being non-zero, but doesn't explain when this operation is appropriate compared to other rating-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'edit_release_rating' or 'delete_release_rating'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cswkim/discogs-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server