Audio Playback MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools, as there are no other tools to compare it to. The single tool has a clear and distinct purpose focused on audio playback for testing.
Naming Consistency5/5Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect—there are no other tool names to be inconsistent with. The tool name 'audio_playback' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count2/5A single tool is too few for a server with the purpose of controlling audio playback for automated testing, as it suggests a very limited scope that may not cover essential operations like pausing, stopping, or managing audio files. This is borderline for the apparent domain.
Completeness2/5The tool surface is severely incomplete for audio playback control; it only offers playback without supporting basic operations such as pause, stop, volume control, or file management. This will likely cause agent failures in handling more complex testing scenarios.
Average 3.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool controls playback for testing via a virtual device, which hints at non-destructive and system-specific behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'status' and 'list_files' actions return. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage without waste. Every sentence earns its place by introducing the tool's function and its specific testing application, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the high-level purpose and testing context but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in an automated testing scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions 'playing prerecorded files', which relates to the 'filename' parameter, but does not explain the semantics of 'action' enum values (e.g., what 'status' returns), 'start_offset_ms', or 'list_limit'. With 4 parameters and low coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('control playback') and resources ('local audio files'), and distinguishes its unique context ('for automated testing', 'via a virtual audio output device', 'routed into the Android emulator's microphone', 'to simulate a human speaking into the mic'). It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the testing scenario and routing mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('for automated testing', 'to simulate a human speaking into the mic by playing prerecorded files'), which gives a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, and there are no sibling tools mentioned for comparison, limiting guidance to implicit context only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/dcarter610/MCP-Virtual-Audio-Player'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server