Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-freesound

mcp-freesound

by jumpifequal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get API usage

get_api_usage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check recent Freesound API request counts for your configured key to monitor rate limits and avoid exceeding them.

Instructions

Show how many Freesound API requests the configured key has made recently, useful to monitor rate limits.

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_api_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
num_daysNoDays of history.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this reflects the 'configured key' and is for rate-limit monitoring, which is useful context. It does not disclose the return shape (counts, limits, remaining quota) or whether the data is cached/live.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and count, with the rate-limit motivation tacked on efficiently. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a monitoring tool with no output schema, the description should say what the response contains (e.g., request count, quota, reset window) so an agent can interpret it. It explains the input window only implicitly and says nothing about return values, leaving a real gap.

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 description coverage is 100%: num_days has a description, default, and min/max bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what a larger window costs or how the aggregation works), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Show how many Freesound API requests the configured key has made'), which is unambiguous. The sibling tools are all sound/user retrieval tools, so no differentiation is needed, but the description also doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the usage context with 'useful to monitor rate limits', which tells an agent when this tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of what to do with the result (e.g., back off requests).

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