Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Otohiroi MCP

Otohiroi MCP

by koyomivanp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_sound

Fetch complete metadata for a specific sound by ID, including tags, license link, page URL, and preview address, to verify usage rights and audition before use.

Instructions

The full record of one sound: tags, license address, page link, preview address.

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sound_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does list the record's components, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for a bad sound_id, or whether missing fields are possible.

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?

A single compact clause with zero filler, and the most important fact (full record of one sound) is front-loaded. It is on the terse side but every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup tool this is roughly adequate: the return contents substitute for the missing output schema. However, the required identifier is left unexplained and there is no usage context, leaving real gaps relative to a schema with 0% coverage.

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 there is a single required parameter, sound_id, which the description never mentions or explains — no format, source, or example. With one undocumented required parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema 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 the exact resource and its scope — 'the full record of one sound' — and enumerates the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it never uses an explicit verb and gives no hint of how it differs from the sibling fetch_sound.

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 guidance on when to call this versus fetch_sound, search_sounds, or other siblings, and no preconditions stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the 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