Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SoundCloud MCP Server

SoundCloud MCP Server

by jamiew
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Remove repost

unrepost_track
Idempotent

Remove a reposted track from your SoundCloud profile by providing its track ID, reversing an unwanted repost.

Instructions

Remove a repost of 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": "unrepost_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trackIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond annotations — it does not say what happens if the track was never reposted, whether auth/scope is required, or what the response contains.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so there is no wasted wording. However, its extreme terseness leaves the definition undersized for a mutation tool with an undocumented parameter.

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?

Given a mutation tool with one fully undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the identifier and the state change. It covers only the bare operation, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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?

The single parameter trackId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it — yet it never mentions trackId, its accepted types (string or number), or what form of identifier is expected (ID vs. URL vs. URN). This is a clear compensation 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 states a specific verb+resource pair ("Remove a repost of a track") that is unambiguous about the operation and its target. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling repost_track and unrepost_playlist, but never names them or explicitly states the distinction.

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 precondition such as "the track must currently be reposted by the authenticated user," and no mention of alternatives like unrepost_playlist for playlist reposts. Usage must be inferred 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

Other Tools