Skip to main content
Glama
SoundCloud MCP Server

SoundCloud MCP Server

by jamiew

Get my likes

get_my_likes
Read-only

Retrieve liked tracks, playlists, or stations for the connected SoundCloud user, with optional result limits and compact or detailed output.

Instructions

List tracks, playlists, or stations the connected user has liked.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_my_likes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNotracks
limitNo
verboseNoReturn every field SoundCloud sends, such as descriptions, not the compact summary

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
next_hrefNoNext page URL; pass to next_page
collectionYesPage items

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only the notion of multiple likeable resource kinds, and says nothing about pagination (next_page exists as a sibling), auth prerequisites, order of results, or empty-like behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Nothing in it is wasted, though the terseness is part of why other dimensions are thin.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a read-only list tool is simple. Still, an agent gets no guidance on paging through more than 'limit' results or on the authenticated-user requirement, which matters for a personal-data tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 33%: only 'verbose' is documented in the schema, while 'limit' and 'kind' are bare. The description partially compensates by naming the three kinds, which maps to the enum, but it never explains the limit/paging semantics or that the default kind is tracks.

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?

Uses a specific verb (List) plus the resource set (tracks, playlists, or stations) and scopes it to 'the connected user', which implicitly separates it from get_user_likes, which takes a target user. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the obvious alternatives (get_user_likes for other users, get_my_tracks/get_my_playlists for owned items). The only hint is 'connected user', which quietly implies an authenticated session but never says so.

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