radiobrowser-api-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_stations_by_name

Search radio stations by name to locate specific broadcasts. Supports exact matching, sorting, and pagination for refined results.

Instructions

Find stations by name (GET /json/stations/byname[/exact]/{name}).

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_name"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0

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 of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that this is a read-only GET operation and that an optional 'exact' path variant exists. However, it does not explain matching semantics, ordering behavior, pagination, or failure modes, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but it is arguably too sparse for an 8-parameter tool with many similar siblings.

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?

With no annotations, 8 parameters, and overlapping sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient for reliable selection and invocation. The output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, but the description omits matching behavior, parameter semantics, and guidance for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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, but it only clarifies 'value' and partially 'exact' via the REST path. It adds no meaning for limit, offset, order, reverse, timeout, or hidebroken, all of which remain unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Find stations by name', and even includes the REST path. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this from overlapping siblings like search_radio_stations or advanced_station_search.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as search_radio_stations or advanced_station_search. The phrase 'Find stations by name' implies a use case, but no explicit context, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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