Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Apple Podcasts MCP

Apple Podcasts MCP

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Compare several shows side by side

compare_shows
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two to six podcasts side by side on chart rank, review sentiment, catalogue size, and publishing cadence. Save the dozen manual API calls by getting a competitive overview in one request.

Instructions

Put two or more shows next to each other on the numbers that matter: chart rank, review sentiment, catalogue size and publishing cadence. This is the competitive read, and doing it by hand is a dozen calls plus the joining. Capped at six shows, because each one costs several requests against a rate-limited API.

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": {
      "shows": "<shows>"
    },
    "name": "compare_shows"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
showsYesTwo to six shows, each an Apple id or an Apple Podcasts URL.
reviewsNoReviews to sample per show. 0 skips them, which makes this much faster.
storefrontNoSingle storefront to compare within. Defaults to the configured one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the six-show cap exists because each show costs several requests against a rate-limited API. The schema further notes that reviews=0 makes the call much faster. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core comparison, the second communicates the value proposition, and the third gives a hard constraint with its reason. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains 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?

For a multi-show aggregation tool with no output schema, the description identifies the metrics being compared and the practical rate-limit constraints, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A precise statement of the response shape would be an improvement, but the described metrics and well-documented parameters make the tool reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already documented with types, constraints, and defaults. The description adds useful context about comparison dimensions but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: it puts two or more shows side by side across concrete metrics like chart rank, review sentiment, catalogue size, and publishing cadence. This distinguishes it from single-show or single-metric siblings such as get_podcast, get_reviews, or find_chart_position. The 'competitive read' framing reinforces its aggregation role.

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 description communicates when to use this tool: when a multi-show competitive comparison is needed, framing it as the alternative to 'a dozen calls plus the joining.' It also gives practical constraints: capped at six shows and rate-limit implications. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 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