Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-freesound

mcp-freesound

by jumpifequal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get sound comments

get_sound_comments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch user comments posted on a Freesound sound, newest first, with pagination and result limits to review listener feedback on specific audio.

Instructions

Get user comments posted on a Freesound sound (newest first).

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": {
      "sound_id": "<sound_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_sound_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResult page (1-based).
sound_idYesFreesound sound ID.
max_resultsNoNumber of results to return (1-30, default 10).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds the useful ordering guarantee ('newest first') but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits beyond what the schema already states.

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 with the resource and the ordering constraint front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. Only a note on pagination/empty-result behavior would fully close the gap, which the schema largely handles via page and max_results.

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%, so every parameter (sound_id, page, max_results) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get user comments posted on a Freesound sound') and adds the ordering semantics ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sound and get_sound_analysis, which return different data about the same resource.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name — the agent can infer you call this to read comments on a known sound. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as a valid sound ID, and no exclusions.

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