Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mixcloud-mcp

mixcloud-mcp

by nelsonra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

search_cloudcasts

Search Mixcloud for cloudcasts by keyword. Specify a query and optional result limit to retrieve matching mixes.

Instructions

Search Mixcloud for mixes (cloudcasts) by keyword.

Args: query: Search term, e.g. "deep house" or "NTS Radio" limit: Number of results to return (default 20, max 100)

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_cloudcasts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the search behavior and the limit parameter's default/max, but does not mention details like pagination, ordering, or response format. The output schema may cover return values, so this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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: a clear purpose sentence and a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 search tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It omits advanced behavioral details, but the output schema and intuitiveness of search make this acceptable.

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?

The description provides substantial meaning beyond the schema: query gets examples ('deep house', 'NTS Radio'), and limit gets a default and maximum. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 states a specific action: 'Search Mixcloud for mixes (cloudcasts) by keyword.' This clearly identifies the resource (Mixcloud mixes) and the operation (search), distinguishing it from siblings like get_cloudcast or upload_cloudcast.

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 context clarifies this tool is for keyword-based discovery, implying when to use it (when you need to find mixes by search term). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the distinction apparent.

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