MCP-AppleMusic

by kennethreitz

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between itunes_play and itunes_play_song, as both involve starting playback. However, itunes_play is a general playback start, while itunes_play_song targets a specific song, which helps differentiate them. All other tools are clearly distinct in function.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the prefix 'itunes_' and a descriptive verb or noun phrase. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in naming style.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing an Apple Music library, covering essential operations like playback control, library queries, playlist creation, and song search. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for core music library management, including playback, search, and playlist creation. However, there are minor gaps, such as the inability to delete or modify existing playlists, which could limit some agent workflows. Overall, it supports most common tasks effectively.
Average 3.4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'Returns a formatted list of all tracks with their names and artists,' which adds some context about the output format. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts for large libraries, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and output. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the essential information. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints, but as-is, it's well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral transparency to be fully adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of all songs in the Music library.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('all songs'), distinguishing it from siblings like itunes_play_song or itunes_search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from itunes_library, which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of itunes_library for song-specific lists or how it compares to itunes_search for filtered results. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks key behavioral details. It states the search is by track name and returns formatted results, but doesn't cover aspects like case sensitivity, partial matching, result limits, error handling, or performance implications (e.g., rate limits). This is insufficient for a search tool.
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?
The description is front-loaded and concise with two sentences that directly state the action and output format. Every word earns its place without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with formatting), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the core function but misses behavioral context and parameter details, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, but the description adds some meaning by specifying the query searches track names. However, it doesn't detail query syntax (e.g., wildcards, spaces) or constraints, leaving gaps. With one parameter, baseline is 4, but the minimal compensation reduces it to 3.
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 clearly states the tool searches the Music library for tracks by name, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'tracks'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'itunes_all_songs' (list all) and 'itunes_play_song' (play specific), but doesn't explicitly contrast them, making it a 4 rather than 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when to choose this over 'itunes_all_songs' for browsing or 'itunes_play_song' for playing, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the library open. This leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (track name, artist, album) but doesn't cover critical behaviors: what happens if iTunes isn't running, if no song is playing, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and return values without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the return values, but with no annotations, it should address behavioral aspects like error conditions or dependencies (e.g., iTunes must be active). The output schema likely covers return structure, so the description doesn't need to detail that, but it could better prepare the agent for real-world usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. It appropriately focuses on the tool's function rather than inputs.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about the currently playing track.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('currently playing track'), distinguishing it from siblings like itunes_play or itunes_pause. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from itunes_all_songs or itunes_library, which also retrieve track information but with different scopes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., iTunes must be running and playing a song), exclusions (e.g., what happens if nothing is playing), or comparisons to siblings like itunes_search or itunes_play_song. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a summary, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Return a summary of the Music library, including total tracks and user playlists.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes specific details (total tracks, user playlists) without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is adequate but has gaps. It clearly states what the tool does, but without annotations, it lacks behavioral context like safety or performance hints. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a read operation with sibling tools, more usage guidance would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with complete schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return a summary of the Music library, including total tracks and user playlists.' It specifies the verb ('Return a summary') and resource ('Music library'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'itunes_all_songs' (which likely lists all songs) and 'itunes_search' (which searches). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'itunes_current_song' or other playback tools, keeping it at a 4.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'itunes_library' over 'itunes_all_songs' for getting track information or 'itunes_search' for finding specific content. There's no context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pausing playback but doesn't specify what happens if playback isn't active (e.g., error behavior), whether it affects other media apps, or if it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic action but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., error handling) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values. For a straightforward tool, it meets the minimum but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy while being complete for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the verb ('Pause') and resource ('playback in Music (iTunes)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'itunes_play' or 'itunes_next', which would require more specific context about when pausing is appropriate versus other playback controls.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'itunes_play' or 'itunes_next', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring playback to be active. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Start playback') but doesn't disclose what happens if playback is already active, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to cover those aspects. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., what 'Start playback' entails, error conditions). The current description is minimal but not fully complete for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
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 clearly states the action ('Start playback') and target resource ('Music (iTunes)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'itunes_play_song', which suggests a similar playback function with song-specific parameters.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'itunes_play_song' or 'itunes_pause'. The description implies it initiates playback, but doesn't specify context (e.g., resuming paused playback vs. starting a new track) or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Return to the previous track') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify what happens if no previous track exists, whether playback automatically resumes, if it affects playlists or queues, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple navigation with 0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., what happens on error or edge cases) to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, aligning with the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the action ('Return to') and target resource ('the previous track'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'itunes_next' or 'itunes_play_song', but the verb 'return to' implies navigation rather than playback initiation.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires iTunes to be playing), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'itunes_next' for forward navigation or 'itunes_play' for resuming playback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns a confirmation message including the number of tracks added,' which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this operation requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on errors (e.g., duplicate playlist names), or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific parameter guidance and return behavior in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. No words are wasted.
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?
Given that there is an output schema (which should document the return values), the description doesn't need to explain return details extensively. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter guidance but lacks behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'songs' should be a 'comma-separated list of exact track names,' which clarifies the format and requirement for exact names. However, it doesn't provide similar context for the 'name' parameter (e.g., length limits, allowed characters), leaving some gaps. Given the low schema coverage, this is above baseline but not fully comprehensive.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new playlist') and resources involved ('with the given name and add tracks to it'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like itunes_play_song (plays existing songs) or itunes_search (finds songs). It provides a complete picture of the tool's function beyond just the name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether this should be used instead of modifying existing playlists (if such a tool exists) or clarify that it's for creating new playlists specifically, not updating existing ones. The description assumes the context without providing explicit usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Skip to the next track' clearly indicates a mutation action (changing playback state), but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether this requires iTunes to be running, what happens at the end of a playlist, error conditions, or response format. It states the core action but lacks operational context.
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?
The description is a single, perfectly focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the complete action statement and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, mutation action), the description is reasonably complete. However, with no annotations and a mutation tool, it could benefit from mentioning basic operational constraints. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema properly documented). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the action. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema is complete.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Skip to') and target resource ('the next track'), using an unambiguous verb+resource combination. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'itunes_play', 'itunes_pause', and 'itunes_previous' by specifying the exact navigation function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when a user wants to advance to the next track in a playback sequence), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It doesn't provide prerequisites or compare with similar tools like 'itunes_previous' or 'itunes_play_song'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior: plays the first exact match and returns a confirmation message. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., if no match found), permissions, or side effects like interrupting current playback. It adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the action and matching logic; the second specifies the return. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, simple action), an output schema exists (so return values are covered), and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, basic behavior, and parameter use. Minor gaps include lack of error cases or playback context, but it's sufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that the 'song' parameter is used for exact name matching and triggers playback of the first match. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity).
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Play'), the resource ('first track whose name exactly matches the given song name'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'itunes_play' (general play) or 'itunes_search' (search without playing). It precisely defines the matching behavior as exact name match and first result.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: when you want to play a specific song by exact name. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools provide clear alternatives (e.g., use 'itunes_search' for broader search, 'itunes_play' for general playback). The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-applemusic MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kennethreitz/mcp-applemusic/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kennethreitz/mcp-applemusic)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-applemusic MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kennethreitz/mcp-applemusic/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kennethreitz/mcp-applemusic)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kennethreitz/mcp-applemusic'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server