SoundCloud MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get track reposters

get_track_reposters

Read-only

Lists the users who reposted a specific SoundCloud track, with optional result limits and verbose details for reviewing repost activity.

Instructions

List the users who reposted a track.

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": {
      "trackId": "<trackId>"
    },
    "name": "get_track_reposters"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`trackId`	Yes
`verbose`	No	Return every field SoundCloud sends, such as descriptions, not the compact summary

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`next_href`	No	Next page URL; pass to next_page
`collection`	Yes	Page items

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.1.2Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's only job is to add context such as pagination, ordering, or result caps. It adds nothing: the 50-per-page default, the 200 maximum, and whether results can be continued with next_page are all undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a paginated list tool with an undocumented ID parameter and a capped limit, the description leaves the agent without paging or input-format guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% — only 'verbose' is documented. The description says nothing about trackId (accepts string or number, presumably an ID or URL) or limit (default 50, max 200, implying paging), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 sentence states a specific verb (List) and resource (users who reposted a track), which cleanly separates it from siblings such as get_track_likers, get_playlist_reposters, and get_user_reposts. It is clear but never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like get_user_reposts or next_page for continuation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server