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

mixcloud-mcp-server

by muntag
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

embed_html

Generate HTML embed code for a Mixcloud show player widget, with optional color, width, and height settings.

Instructions

Embed code (HTML) for a show's player widget. color: 6-digit hex, no '#'.

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "embed_html"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
colorNo
widthNo
heightNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a read-only generation, whether auth is required, or that the output is an HTML snippet to be pasted. For a 4-param tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the color format note is useful. Minor: the color detail is crammed in without structure, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits what 'key' refers to, auth requirements, and any routing versus oembed. Too thin for a tool with a required identifier parameter.

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, yet it documents only color (6-digit hex, no '#'). The required 'key' parameter and the width/height units and behavior remain entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: producing embed HTML for a show's player widget. It's clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling oembed tool, which plausibly serves a similar embedding purpose.

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 this versus oembed or any other sibling, and no prerequisites (e.g. auth) are stated. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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