mcp-kodi

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct, well-defined purpose (playback, volume, playlist, search, history, config). Potential overlaps like play vs playfile are clearly differentiated by descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names are lowercase, single words or compound words without underscores or camelCase, forming a consistent and predictable pattern.
Tool Count5/5
16 tools cover the essential operations for a Kodi remote control without being excessive. The scope feels well-balanced.
Completeness4/5
Covers core playback, volume, playlist, and search operations. Missing advanced features like seeking or subtitle control, but these are not essential for basic remote control.
Average 4.4/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 153 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 19, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the core action (pause) and return value (player-state snapshot). With no annotations, it carries the full burden but lacks details on idempotency or state when already paused.
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: first states purpose and action, second lists returned fields. No redundant information.
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?
Tool is simple (one optional param, output schema exists). Description covers action and return value adequately for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'instance'. Description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, meriting baseline score.
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?
Clearly states it pauses the active player on the target Kodi instance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'play', 'stop', 'mute'. The verb 'pause' uniquely identifies the action.
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 pause vs alternatives like 'stop' or 'mute'. Does not mention conditions or exclusions.
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 the burden. It discloses the return structure (muted, volume) but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites beyond the parameter.
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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the action and return value, making it efficient and immediately informative.
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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return. It could mention idempotency or behavior when already muted, but is adequate for most use cases.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no information beyond the schema's parameter description, which already explains the 'instance' parameter and default behavior.
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 specifies a concrete verb ('Mute') and resource ('target instance's audio output'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'unmute' and 'volume'.
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?
The description implies usage (to silence audio output) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'unmute' or 'volume', nor does it provide any exclusions.
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. It mentions the return format '{ "muted", "volume" }' but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or failure conditions.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence and a return note. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 (one optional parameter and an output schema), the description covers the core action and return structure. The existence of an output schema compensates for lack of return details in the description. Slightly lacking in error or prerequisite information.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'instance,' which is already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb 'Unmute' and the resource 'target instance's audio output.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mute' and 'volume' by its opposite action.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mute' or 'volume.' Usage is implied but not directly stated, lacking when-not-to-use or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses the read-only nature, return format, and idle state handling.
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 efficiently convey purpose, behavior, and return format with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and return values adequately.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's own parameter description.
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 tool reports what is playing on the target instance and explicitly notes it does not change anything, distinguishing it from siblings like play, pause, or stop.
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?
The description implies it is safe and used as a reachability probe, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like getplaylist or history.
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?
Discloses side effect (clear playlist) and return format, but does not mention behavior when no active player exists or any potential edge cases. With no annotations, description could be more thorough.
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, front-loaded with main action, concise and to the point. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a low-complexity tool: describes action, side effect, and return format. Output schema is implied in the description.
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 covers the single parameter (instance) at 100% coverage. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states action ('stop the active player') and resource ('target instance'), with explicit side effect ('clear playlist'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pause' by mentioning playlist clearing.
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?
Implies use for stopping playback entirely (including clearing queue), contrasting with 'pause'. Lacks explicit when-not guidance but context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it passes through raw replies unchanged and is disabled unless configured, providing behavioral context beyond the schema.
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?
Two sentences with key information front-loaded, though the second sentence is somewhat lengthy. Efficient overall.
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?
Explains usage, constraints, and behavior. Lacks information about error handling or return format details, but sufficient for this specialized tool.
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 coverage is 100% but the description adds clarity: 'method' is verbatim, 'params' passed straight through, 'instance' defaults. Adds value beyond schema.
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 identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch' for sending raw JSON-RPC methods to Kodi, distinguishing it from dedicated tools that model specific methods.
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?
It states when to use (for methods not modeled by dedicated tools) and conditions (requires opt-in, disabled by default), but lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is non-destructive ('Read the queue without changing it'), describes the return format, and covers edge cases like an empty queue returning an empty list. It also reveals the override behavior of the 'type' parameter. This is good behavioral disclosure.
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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide additional context. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 (2 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It covers the return structure, empty queue behavior, and the parameter override. It could mention error scenarios (like invalid instance or no player active), but for a read-only tool this is not critical.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that specifying a type is 'the only way to inspect an inactive queue' and that the named playlist 'always wins'. This supplements the schema description for the 'type' parameter. The 'instance' parameter is not elaborated, but the schema already covers it adequately.
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 it reads the queue without modifying it, and specifies the resource as the active player's playlist or a named one (audio/video/picture). The verb 'Read' and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nowplaying' (which likely shows only the current item) by indicating it returns the full playlist and position.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (reading the queue) and notes that a named playlist 'always wins', allowing inspection of inactive queues. It implicitly suggests not to use this for changing state, and sibling tools like 'play', 'pause', 'stop' are for control. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool's scope (server config), actions, and return structure. It also notes that auth is write-only, adding important behavioral detail beyond the schema.
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: one sentence plus a compact return format listing. It front-loads the purpose and includes no filler. Every sentence 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 complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, no nested objects), the description covers the overall purpose, scope, and return structure. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand usage without additional context.
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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by summarizing actions, showing the output format, and noting the write-only nature of auth, which goes beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool reads or modifies configured Kodi instances, with explicit actions (get/set/remove). It distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying it manages the MCP server's own config, not a Kodi device.
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 specifies that the tool manages the MCP server's own config, implying it is not for direct Kodi control. While it doesn't list explicit alternatives, the scope is clear, and sibling tools cover other functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses relative adjustment, clamping, and return format; no annotations provided, so description carries burden effectively, though permissions or side effects not mentioned.
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 concise sentences plus return format note; front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a low-parameter tool with output schema; covers adjustment, reading, and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond 100% schema coverage: clarifies step as percentage, clamping, instance default, and reading behavior.
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 tool adjusts volume by a relative step and reports current volume when step is 0 or omitted, distinguishing it from siblings like mute/unmute.
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?
Implied usage for adjusting or reading volume, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like mute, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: uses Player.Open, auto-selects player, error reporting for missing files, and return structure. Lacks details on auth or side effects but sufficient for playback intent.
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?
Concise three sentences with front-loaded core action. Every sentence adds information, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality, error handling, and return value. Output schema exists for return details, making the description complete for this simple tool.
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 coverage is 100%, and description adds context beyond schema (e.g., file comes from searchmedia, instance default behavior). Adds value without redundancy.
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?
Description clearly states 'Play one file by path', specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'play' and 'queue' by focusing on direct file playback via path.
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?
Provides usage context such as 'a searchmedia result's file' and 'works for any reachable path', but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the tool is read-only, returns a structured object with total/returned/offset/truncated/rows, and explains that rows contain a 'name' and an 'in' array indicating where the name appears. The truncation signal and pagination implications are clear.
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 with zero waste. The first sentence bundles purpose, parameters, and an example. The second sentence covers output structure and integration with sibling tool. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (none required), an enum, and an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: usage patterns, output format, pagination hints, and integration with searchmedia. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'Omit to list everyone (of type when given)', using count to return only total, and the pagination pattern). It gives a concrete example ('List all bands = {type: "band"} with no name') that clarifies the enum.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Find or list contributors') and immediately clarifies the resource (bands, solo artists, composers, actors, directors). It distinguishes itself from sibling searchmedia by explaining that the output name is meant to be fed back into searchmedia for drilling. This makes the tool's role clear and complementary.
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 explains when to use the tool (to list contributors by type or search by name) and provides a concrete downstream action ('feed the exact name back into searchmedia'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the action is not undoable, that playback is never interrupted, that it clears all three playlists, and that it returns a player-state snapshot. No behavior is hidden or misrepresented.
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 three sentences, front-loading the main action ('Empty all queues') and providing necessary caveats and return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that clears queues, the description covers the action, the behavior (non-interrupting, not undoable), the return value (player-state snapshot), and provides a safety hint (inspect first). With an output schema present (mentioned), the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'instance' is documented in the schema). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.
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 tool empties all queues (audio, video, picture) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getplaylist' (inspect) and 'queue' (add) by specifying it clears queued items while keeping the current item playing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is given: 'Not undoable; inspect with getplaylist first if the content matters.' This tells the agent when not to use it (if content matters) and provides an alternative (getplaylist). It also implies when to use: when you want to clear queues without interruption.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a no-op when nothing is loaded, and returns a specific state snapshot. It also details the return fields.
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 that are front-loaded with the main action and constraints, with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no required, output schema partially described), the description provides complete context: purpose, constraints, return format, and differentiation from siblings.
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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Press Play' and the resource 'Kodi remote', and distinguishes from the sibling 'playfile' by noting it only resumes paused playback and cannot start new content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when to use ('resumes paused playback only'), when not to use ('cannot start new content'), and provides an alternative ('use playfile to start something').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that items whose files are missing from disk are refused, that the current item keeps playing (unchanged), and that the return value is a player-state snapshot. This covers safety, side effects, and return behavior comprehensively.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately avoids detailing return values. It covers prerequisites, input modes (library id vs. file), conditions for 'type', and the nuance of 'next'. The parameter descriptions in the schema are thorough, and the description fills remaining gaps, making it fully complete for a queuing tool.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between 'type' and 'id' (matching rows from 'searchmedia'), the mutually exclusive 'id'/'file' constraint, and the semantics of 'next'. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'queue' combined with resource context ('item behind the one now playing for continuous playback') and explicitly distinguishes between library id and file path inputs. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'play' and 'playfile' by stating the prerequisite that something must already be playing.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Something must already be playing (start with play/playfile).' It also explains the 'next' parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond the prerequisite, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it reads only local log, requires no Kodi call, works even when no box reachable, and explains the behavior of omitted instance (returns all boxes). Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits.
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 dense but well-structured within a single paragraph. It front-loads the main purpose, then systematically covers filters, pagination, behavioral notes, and return format. Every sentence adds value without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (12 parameters, rich filtering, pagination, output schema), the description is complete. It covers all usage aspects, behavioral notes, and the return structure, leaving no ambiguity for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds significant meaning beyond a fully covered schema (100% coverage). For instance, explains that omitted instance differs from other tools, advises computing relative windows for since/until, describes default/max for limit and truncated flag, explains offset pagination, order use case, count as cheap total, media/kind examples, artist substring limitation, match field scope, and id pairing with media.
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 tool lists recently played items from the local playback log, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nowplaying, getplaylist, and searchmedia by focusing on historical playback log.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use, including filtering options (ISO-8601 window, media/kind/artist, free-text, exact id), pagination (limit/offset/order), and a note that omitted instance returns all boxes, differing from other tools. Also implies alternatives for library search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description fully discloses behavior: pagination via limit/offset, cheap count via 'count' boolean, drilling to leaf files, return structure (type, total, returned, offset, truncated, rows) with key fields. It also explains edge cases like album-level search for music and cast/director matching per episode.
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?
Description is a single paragraph with efficient front-loading of main purpose, followed by key constraints and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an implied output schema (listed in description), the description covers all necessary context: pagination, cheap count, media-type-specific behaviors, and exclusion of people lookups. No gaps remain for an AI agent to successfully invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 11 parameters with 100% description coverage, but description adds critical meaning beyond schema: title means album for music; for tv-show, actor matches episode cast including guest stars; director per episode; library-wide matching when certain parameters omitted. This enriches parameter understanding.
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?
Description clearly states the tool finds playable files by name for music, tv-show, movie with pagination and total count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'contributors' tool for people lookups. The verb 'Find' and resource 'playable files' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides explicit when-to-use (for media items) and when-not-to-use (for people, use contributors). It details constraints per media type: music title is album name, tv-show requires title/actor/director, and combinability of filters. This guides correct invocation.
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-kodi MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/laszlopere/mcp-kodi/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/laszlopere/mcp-kodi)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/laszlopere/mcp-kodi'

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