Skip to main content
Glama
giuliocapecchi

sound-mcp

by giuliocapecchi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The tools have distinct purposes but notify and play_sound both involve playing a sound, which could cause confusion. However, the descriptions clarify the differences, so disambiguation is good overall.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Two tools follow verb_noun pattern (list_sounds, play_sound), while notify is a single verb. This is a minor inconsistency but not chaotic.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is reasonable for a focused sound server. It covers core operations without being excessive, though it's on the smaller side.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers listing sounds, playing sounds, and notifications. Missing management of sound library (add/remove) but this is acceptable for the stated purpose.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 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
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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.json to 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    The description explains urgency effects and expire_ms behavior, but fails to disclose that the 'sound' parameter is optional (default null) and may not actually play a sound, contradicting the claim 'play a sound'. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden.

    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 concise: three sentences in a list format. The main purpose is front-loaded, and parameter details are efficiently provided without repetition.

    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?

    For a simple notification tool, the description covers most relevant aspects. Minor gaps exist (e.g., sound parameter behavior), but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details.

    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?

    With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining urgency values and expire_ms behavior. However, it does not clarify the 'message', 'title', or 'sound' parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

    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 tool's purpose: 'Show a desktop notification AND play a sound.' It specifies the action and resources (notification and sound), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sounds and play_sound by combining both functions.

    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?

    The description implies when to use the tool (for notifications with optional sound) but does not explicitly compare to siblings. However, the context of sibling tools list_sounds and play_sound makes the intended usage clear.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state lack of side effects or state changes. Adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and result. No wasted words.

    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?

    Tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists. The description covers the essential information (sound names and default), making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

    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?

    Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is acceptable.

    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 tool lists all sound names and the current default, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sound names'). It distinguishes from siblings 'notify' and 'play_sound' which involve actions rather than listing.

    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 implies usage for browsing sounds and knowing the default, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like 'play_sound'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Without annotations, the description must explain behavior. It discloses the parameter options and default, but does not cover edge cases like error handling, blocking versus non-blocking execution, or file compatibility, limiting full transparency.

    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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence is meaningful and contributes to understanding, with no waste.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, default behavior, and references a sibling tool, leaving no major gaps for an AI agent.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter in detail: it can be a registered sound (linking to list_sounds) or an absolute path, and it is optional with a default. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

    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 tool's function: 'Play a notification sound.' It is specific and distinct from siblings like list_sounds and notify, ensuring the agent can select it appropriately.

    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?

    The description provides guidance by mentioning list_sounds for registered sounds and explaining default behavior. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with the notify sibling, which would improve decision-making.

    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

sound-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

sound-mcp MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

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/giuliocapecchi/sound-mcp'

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