Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SoundCloud MCP Server

SoundCloud MCP Server

by jamiew
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Like playlist

like_playlist
Idempotent

Marks a SoundCloud playlist or station as liked using its playlist ID.

Instructions

Like a playlist or a station.

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": {
      "playlistId": "<playlistId>"
    },
    "name": "like_playlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playlistIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the title: it does not say whether authentication is required, whether liking an already-liked playlist is a silent no-op, or what the call returns.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight communication.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at least cover auth needs and the playlist-vs-station identifier question. The annotations carry idempotency and safety, but the description leaves the core invocation semantics unresolved.

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 0% and the single parameter playlistId has no description in the schema. The description does not explain whether this field accepts station IDs (despite mentioning stations) or what identifier format is expected, 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 description gives a specific verb ('Like') and resource ('a playlist or a station'), which separates it from siblings like unlike_playlist and like_track. The mention of 'station' is slightly misleading because the schema exposes only a playlistId parameter, leaving the agent to wonder whether station IDs are passed through the same field.

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 prerequisite (e.g. authentication or ownership), and no reference to alternatives such as like_track or unlike_playlist. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and siblings.

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