mcp-aoty

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
All tools target distinct actions or resource categories: search_* covers queries, get_album fetches detail, and each get_* list is labeled by a specific category such as new, popular, upcoming, must-hear, or critic. No two tools appear to perform the same task.
Naming Consistency5/5
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_<resource> for retrieval and search_<entity> for queries. Minor singular/plural differences like get_album versus search_albums do not obscure the overall naming convention.
Tool Count4/5
With 18 tools, this is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by the breadth of music data covered: albums, singles, artist/label search, critic lists, news, and server metadata. No tools feel redundant.
Completeness3/5
Album workflows are well covered, but search_artists and search_labels return profile slugs with no corresponding get_artist or get_label tool, leaving those searches as dead ends. The list coverage is broad otherwise, so the gap is notable but not crippling.
Average 3.8/5 across 16 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read/return operation, but it does not mention side effects, rate limits, caching, permission requirements, or what format the returned references take. This is a meaningful gap for an informational tool.
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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. However, the word 'required' is vague and could be clarified without making the description bloated.
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 no-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It would benefit from explaining when and why attribution must be fetched, but nothing critical is missing for a caller to invoke the tool.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter guidance is needed.
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 clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('required source attribution and upstream API references'). It stands apart from the sibling music-data tools, though it does not explain why the attribution is 'required' or what it should be used for.
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 is given about when to call this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention best practices such as retrieving attribution before displaying upstream data. The intended usage is only loosely inferable from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-oriented search that returns profiles, but it does not disclose matching semantics (partial vs exact), result limits, or ordering behavior.
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 no filler. It states the action, the object, and the output in one compact line.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists and the parameter set is minimal, so baseline callability is fine. But with many sibling search tools, missing guidance about scope and matching makes the definition contextually incomplete.
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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the generic idea that a query searches labels. It does not tell the agent what kinds of query strings are valid or how the query is matched.
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 states a specific action, 'Search record labels', and the returned outcome, 'matching label profiles'. This distinguishes it from album/artist searches by resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the broader search_all sibling.
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?
The intended use is implied: use this tool when searching for record label profiles. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_all or search_albums/search_artists, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only listing action and discloses the year-0 default-index behavior. However, it leaves 'default index' undefined and does not mention edge cases, ordering, or pagination behavior.
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 and front-loaded, with no filler. The one-sentence purpose and parameter note are both necessary and sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It falls short on explaining the 'default index' sentinel and on guiding the agent toward this tool versus the sibling get_critic_list, leaving some ambiguity.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'year' is the filter and 0 returns the default index. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema field.
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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('publication and critic year-end lists'), with an optional year filter. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_critic_list, but the plural 'lists' vs singular sibling gives reasonable differentiation.
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?
The only guidance is how to use the year parameter, not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of get_critic_list or any other sibling, and no exclusionary conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches three resource types; it does not mention pagination, result limits, ordering, read-only guarantees, or any other behavior. The existence of an output schema covers return shape but not behavioral traits.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key differentiator ('in one request') is included without added bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the core behavior is broadly understandable. However, the absence of annotations and usage guidance leaves an agent to infer when to use this combined search versus the individual search siblings, and behavioral details like pagination or limits are unaddressed.
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 the parameter definition. It gives no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'query' string field, such as matching behavior, formatting requirements, or example values. The single parameter is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic depth.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and explicitly names the three resource types covered: albums, artists, and labels. The phrase 'in one request' clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools search_albums, search_artists, and search_labels.
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?
The description implies the use case: a combined search across albums, artists, and labels in a single request. Sibling names make the narrower alternatives obvious, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over them or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the ordering mechanism ('ordered by AOTY's release feed') and pagination intent ('page: One-based page number for older singles'), but it does not mention result count, recency window, pagination size, or read-only safety.
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 minimal and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the Args section adds only relevant parameter context. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action, ordering, and pagination semantics. It lacks sibling differentiation and recency window details, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema reduce the burden on the description.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics to the page parameter by explaining it is one-based and used for older singles, which goes beyond the schema's type and default. It does not mention bounds or behavior when page is omitted, but the schema default covers that.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List recently released singles', and adds the ordering source, 'AOTY's release feed'. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_popular_singles through 'recently released' and 'release feed', though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_new_releases or get_popular_singles. The page argument implies that higher pages fetch older singles, but there is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the search scope and that the output is artist profile slugs, but it does not mention pagination, result limits, authentication, or the read-only nature explicitly.
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 a single short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent what to search and what will be returned. It is slightly incomplete because it omits any comparison to search_all and does not describe edge-case behavior like empty results.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that the query parameter expects artist names. This goes beyond the bare schema label 'Query', though it does not specify matching behavior or formatting rules.
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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('artist names'), and specifies the return value ('artist profile slugs'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like search_albums and search_labels, though it does not explicitly differentiate from search_all.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_all or search_albums. The description implies it is for artist name searches, but it does not state exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists popular albums; it does not disclose how popularity is determined, whether results are ordered, if pagination exists, or whether any authentication or rate limits apply. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The resource and scope are clearly presented, and every word contributes to understanding.
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 parameterless list tool with an output schema available, the description provides enough context to understand the core purpose. The main gap is the lack of clarity on the exact meaning of 'popular' and any ordering or recency behavior, but the output schema likely covers return details.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter needs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool, yielding the baseline of 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('albums currently popular with the AOTY community'), clearly communicating what the tool returns. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_new_releases or get_popular_singles, which target different album scopes.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as get_popular_singles, get_anticipated_albums, or get_new_releases. There are no stated exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria beyond the implicit meaning of the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns slugs rather than full album details, which is useful context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how matching works, or any limits/ordering, leaving the agent to infer those from the word 'search.'
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 no filler. 'Search album releases' immediately states the action and resource, and 'authoritative detail slugs' adds the key output detail. Every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description omits query semantics and any guidance on how the returned slugs should be used (e.g., with get_album), leaving the agent to guess at input format. It is adequate for a minimal call but not fully complete.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what the `query` parameter expects (e.g., album title, artist, fuzzy matching, exact phrase). The parameter name 'query' and the verb 'search' weakly imply a free-text search string, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('album releases'), and specifies the output type ('authoritative detail slugs'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_artists, search_labels, and search_all, since it is scoped to albums only.
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?
The description implies usage (search for album releases with a query) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. Given siblings like search_all, search_artists, and search_labels, the description does not explain when this tool is preferred over those, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal pagination behavior ('one-based page number for older stories') and feed_type variants, but it says nothing about output content or any potential side effects. For a simple read-only listing tool this is adequate yet minimal.
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?
Very concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description provides enough information to call it correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of sibling guidance, which is already covered under usage_guidelines, so overall it is complete for invocation.
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 adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains page as one-based and for older stories, and explicitly lists the allowed feed_type values ('newsworthy', 'new', 'comment'). Since the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), this fully compensates.
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 action and resource: 'List music-news stories from AOTY's selected feed.' This clearly indicates what the tool does and is distinct from album, single, and search siblings, though it does not explicitly call out sibling differences.
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 tool versus siblings such as get_new_singles, get_popular_singles, or get_critic_lists. The description implies use for music news but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'List' and discloses pagination behavior via 'one-based page number for more results' plus the omit-filter sentinel values. However, it does not mention result ordering, page size, or whether the list is curated/ranked, which would add useful behavioral context.
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 first sentence states the core purpose and optional filters, followed by a compact and readable args block. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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?
For a simple list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete: all parameters are explained, default behaviors are clear, and pagination is mentioned. The only notable omission is guidance about how this relates to sibling album-list tools, but that is a usage-guideline concern rather than a blocker for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly defines every parameter: year is a release-year filter with 0 meaning 'omit', decade is a string like '1990s' with empty string meaning 'omit', and page is a one-based pagination parameter. This fully compensates for the bare schema and leaves no parameter meaning ambiguous.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('AOTY's must-hear albums') and adds optional filtering by year or decade, which gives concrete scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like get_popular_albums or get_anticipated_albums, but the 'must-hear' category is distinctive enough to avoid real confusion.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_popular_albums, get_anticipated_albums, search_albums, or get_critic_lists. The only usage-related information is about the optional filters, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a read-only listing operation and the paginated nature via the page parameter. However, it does not disclose ordering, freshness, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are limited by any criteria beyond 'announced upcoming.'
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: one clear opening sentence and one param explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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 paginated listing tool with an output schema present and a single optional parameter, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of guidance on when to choose this over the overlapping get_anticipated_albums tool, but this is partially a usage-guidelines concern.
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?
The schema property page has no description, so the description's 'One-based page number for more upcoming releases' adds useful meaning. It clarifies the parameter's format and purpose, which is sufficient given there is only one optional parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List announced upcoming album releases.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from similarly named siblings like get_new_releases and get_new_singles. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related get_anticipated_albums.
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?
The phrase 'announced upcoming album releases' implies when the tool should be used, but no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are given. An agent is left to infer how this differs from get_anticipated_albums or get_new_releases rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation, which is the core behavior. However, it does not explain how 'anticipation' is measured or what the returned data represents beyond the output schema, leaving some behavioral context implicit.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and subject. Every word is informative, with no repetition of the tool name or irrelevant details.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could slightly improve by noting the time window or relationship to other list tools, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics burden on the description; nothing additional is needed beyond confirming the tool takes no arguments.
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 ('List') and resource ('albums the AOTY community is most anticipating'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_popular_albums or get_upcoming_releases. The qualifier 'most anticipating' gives a distinct, meaningful scope.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_upcoming_releases, get_must_hear_albums, or get_popular_albums. There is no mention of exclusions, intended use cases, or how anticipation differs from other album listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only listing operation, but no annotations are present to confirm safety. It does not explain how results are ranked, how many albums are returned, or what determines 'highly regarded' status, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool returns and how it differs from mainstream album lists.
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?
Given zero parameters, an existing output schema, and low complexity, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of criteria detail to fully distinguish it from similar sibling list tools, but that does not block correct use.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema already reflects that with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.
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 uses a clear verb ('List') and resource ('albums') with a specific selection criterion: 'highly regarded albums with lower mainstream visibility.' It distinguishes the tool from popular-album queries, though it could still be conceptually confused with sibling tools like get_must_hear_albums or get_anticipated_albums.
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 phrase 'lower mainstream visibility' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants quality albums beyond popular/mainstream exposure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a safe, read-only operation, which is minimal but not contradictory. It does not describe side effects, error handling, or rate limits, but for a simple fetch these may be implicitly safe. It adds no detail beyond the basic read nature.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is crisp. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema exists, and the description explains both purpose and parameter source, it is largely complete. It could mention potential edge cases (e.g., invalid slug), but for a simple fetch with output schema, this is sufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining the slug's origin ('returned by get_critic_lists') and its role as an identifier. It adds value beyond the schema by giving acquisition context. It doesn't provide format examples, but for a single string param this is adequate.
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 clearly states the tool fetches the ranked albums within a specific critic or publication list, using a verb ('Fetch') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_critic_lists (which likely lists lists) by indicating it works on a single list identified by a slug.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the slug parameter ('returned by get_critic_lists'), which is the key usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the parameter source is clear and implies when to use this tool. Could be stronger by naming when not to use it, but it is functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It covers ordering ('ordered by AOTY's release feed') and pagination semantics ('page: One-based page number for older releases'), giving useful behavioral context beyond the bare purpose.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sections with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by a compact parameter note. Every sentence adds information.
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?
Given the low complexity, one optional parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what is returned, the ordering, and pagination, though the 'recently released' window itself is not precisely defined.
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%, but the description compensates for the only parameter by explaining that page is one-based and is used to fetch older releases. This adds meaning beyond the plain schema property.
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 verb and resource: 'List recently released albums'. It also names the ordering source, 'AOTY's release feed', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_new_singles and get_upcoming_releases.
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?
Usage is implied by 'recently released albums' and the page argument for 'older releases', but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_new_singles or get_upcoming_releases, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the community scope is stated, but it does not disclose details like ordering, recency criteria, or whether the list is dynamic. This is adequate but minimal.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema available, the description is complete enough. It identifies the data category, the popularity filter, and the community source; users can rely on the output schema for return shape.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-related gaps exist.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List singles') and a clear scope qualifier ('currently popular with the AOTY community'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_new_singles and get_popular_albums without requiring schema inspection.
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 wording clearly implies this tool is for retrieving currently popular singles rather than albums or new/upcoming releases. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. 'Return the installed version' transparently signals a read-only query with no side effects, and the output schema covers the response shape. It could have explicitly mentioned error behavior, but for such a simple introspection tool this is sufficient.
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?
One concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter version-introspection tool with an output schema, nothing important is missing. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing here.
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 clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the installed version of the mcp-aoty server'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. It is unambiguously distinct from all sibling music/content tools.
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 purpose is self-evident: use it to retrieve the server version, and no sibling tool does this, so no exclusions are needed. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer it over alternatives, but the unique zero-parameter scope makes the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 discloses the fuzzy-resolution caveat with a concrete example and the consequence of omitting minimal. It could add more about permissions/rate limits, but the read-only semantics of 'Fetch' are clear.
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?
Compact structured Args block plus one example with no filler. The example is long but earns its place by clarifying a non-obvious ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All required invocation logic is present, and the output schema handles return-shape details. It covers identification, fallbacks, and the optimization flag, so an agent can call the tool correctly without further assumptions.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description documents all four parameters: slug, artist, name, and minimal, including dependency constraints and behavior. The Cassius example makes the ambiguous fallback resolution concrete.
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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('an album's detail, scores, tracks, reviews, and credits'). It is clearly distinct from sibling search tools like search_albums and get_critic_lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says slug is the authoritative identifier, artist/name are fuzzy fallbacks only when slug is unavailable, and directs the agent to resolve with search_albums and pass its slug. The minimal parameter also gets a precise when-to-use condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-aoty MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/obrien-matthew/mcp-aoty/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/obrien-matthew/mcp-aoty)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-aoty MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/obrien-matthew/mcp-aoty/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/obrien-matthew/mcp-aoty)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/obrien-matthew/mcp-aoty'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server