Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mixcloud-mcp-server

mixcloud-mcp-server

by muntag
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

auth_url

Generate the OAuth authorization URL for Mixcloud. Open it in a browser to grant access; optionally set a redirect_uri to receive the code via query parameter.

Instructions

Step 1 of OAuth: URL the user must open in a browser to allow access. Without redirect_uri, Mixcloud shows the code on screen; with it, the code arrives as ?code=... on that URL. Then call exchange_code(code).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "auth_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
redirect_uriNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the behavioral difference between supplying redirect_uri (code arrives as ?code=... ) and omitting it (Mixcloud displays the code on screen), plus the required next step. It omits what the tool itself returns and any auth/permission context, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the OAuth step-1 framing, then the conditional parameter behavior, then the next call. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does convey what the agent gets (a URL to hand to the user) and what to do next. Minor gaps remain around return type details and error/permission cases, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 0% and the only parameter is opaque, but the description supplies its real semantics: the presence or absence of redirect_uri changes how the OAuth code is delivered. That is meaningful added meaning beyond the bare string 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?

States a specific action and resource ('URL the user must open in a browser to allow access') and explicitly frames itself as 'Step 1 of OAuth', which positions it against the sibling exchange_code rather than leaving the agent to guess the flow.

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?

Clearly establishes when to use it (OAuth step 1) and names the follow-up call exchange_code(code). It does not spell out a when-not case or prerequisites (e.g., that no token is needed yet), so it falls short of a full 5.

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