Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sound-mcp

sound-mcp

by giuliocapecchi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

notify

Display desktop notifications with optional sounds, adjustable urgency, and custom timeout to alert users when background tasks complete.

Instructions

Show a desktop notification AND play a sound.

urgency: low | normal | critical (critical toasts are sticky on most desktops). expire_ms: notification timeout in ms; 0 = desktop default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "notify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes
titleNoClaude
soundNo
urgencyNonormal
expire_msNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools