radiobrowser-api-mcp

by maxim75

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

find_stations_by_codec

Search radio stations by codec (e.g., MP3) to filter for streams with the desired audio format.

Instructions

Find stations by stream codec, e.g. "MP3" (GET /json/stations/bycodec[/exact]/{codec}).

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": {
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "find_stations_by_codec"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`exact`	No
`limit`	No
`order`	No	votes
`value`	Yes
`offset`	No
`reverse`	No
`timeout`	No
`hidebroken`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does identify this as a GET request with an optional /exact variant, which implies a read-only lookup. However, it does not disclose the full behavior around defaults, ordering, or the meaning of exact=false beyond the obvious, so transparency is only partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with a useful example and endpoint. No filler; every element earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The output schema covers return shape, but the input context is not complete: 6 parameters are effectively undocumented, there are no annotations, and no alternative/selection guidance is given. For an 8-parameter tool this description leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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%, so the description must compensate for 8 parameters, but it only touches on value (via the MP3 example) and exact (via the endpoint). limit, offset, order, reverse, hidebroken, and timeout receive no semantic guidance beyond their names and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find stations by stream codec', with a concrete example ('MP3') and the endpoint path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling finders such as find_stations_by_name or find_stations_by_country because the filtering dimension is explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies the tool is for codec-based lookup, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over advanced_station_search or search_radio_stations, nor does it state any exclusions. The endpoint form gives some guidance, but the decision context is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.