MusicBrainz MCP Server

by zas

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between search_entities, search_artists, and search_releases that could cause confusion. The descriptions help clarify when to use each, but an agent might misselect between them for simple searches. Other tools like get_album_tracks vs get_release_details are well-differentiated with clear guidance.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as browse_entities, get_artist_details, search_artists, and lookup_by_barcode. All tools use snake_case with clear, descriptive names, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count4/5
With 17 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for the comprehensive MusicBrainz domain, covering entities like artists, releases, recordings, and labels. It includes essential operations like search, get details, and browse, though it might feel a bit heavy compared to simpler servers.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for the MusicBrainz domain, including search, retrieval, and browsing across all entity types (artists, releases, recordings, labels, works, areas). It handles CRUD-like operations where applicable (e.g., get details, search) and includes niche tools like get_cover_art_urls and lookup_by_barcode, leaving no obvious gaps for agent workflows.
Average 3.9/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets details' but doesn't specify what details are returned, whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently specifies the resource scope. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, with no annotations and low parameter coverage, it lacks context on behavior and usage. For a simple lookup tool, it's minimally viable but incomplete in guiding effective use.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about the 'area_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what format 'area_id' should be (e.g., ISO codes, names), what values are valid, or provide examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 ('Get details') and resource ('geographic area'), specifying it includes countries and cities. It distinguishes from most siblings that focus on music entities (artists, releases, etc.), though not from 'browse_entities' or 'search_entities' which could overlap with geographic areas. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from potential siblings.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'browse_entities' or 'search_entities' that might also handle geographic areas. The description lacks context for tool selection.
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 states the tool retrieves details but does not cover aspects like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries an external database or API.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and lists key output fields without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying what details are retrieved.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description's focus on output fields is adequate. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it lacks completeness for safe and effective use, such as error handling or usage context relative to siblings.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'label_id' is needed. It lists output fields (type, area, genres, URLs), which helps infer the parameter's purpose but does not detail format or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description provides minimal compensation.
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 ('Get details') and resource ('about a record label'), specifying the type of information retrieved (type, area, genres, URLs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_area_details' or 'get_artist_details', which have similar naming patterns but target different entities.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it requires a specific label ID format or how it differs from general search tools like 'search_entities' for finding labels.
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 what the tool does ('Get details'), without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when to use it versus siblings and doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or errors, which are important even with an output schema. It meets the baseline but has clear gaps.
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?
The description adds no information about the 'work_id' parameter beyond what the input schema provides (a required string). With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining what a 'work_id' is, its format, or where to obtain it. However, since there is only one parameter and an output schema exists, the baseline is met.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get details about a musical work' with specific examples of the types of details (composers, lyricists, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('musical work'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_artist_details' or 'get_release_details' beyond mentioning 'musical work'.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_artist_details' or 'search_entities', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
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 states the tool 'finds' a release, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the barcode isn't found), response format, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
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 zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Finds a release') and directly addresses the key parameter ('by its UPC/EAN barcode'), making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should document return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and sparse parameter details, it lacks context on behavior and usage that would help an agent operate it reliably in real scenarios.
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?
The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema. It specifies that the 'barcode' parameter should be a UPC/EAN barcode, which clarifies the expected format, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate baseline information. However, it doesn't detail constraints like barcode length or validation 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('finds') and resource ('a release'), and identifies the lookup mechanism ('by its UPC/EAN barcode'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_releases' or 'get_release_details', which could also retrieve release information through different mechanisms.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid barcode), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_releases' (which might handle partial matches or other criteria). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
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 full burden. It states the tool 'gets relationships' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what specific relationship types are returned. The examples give some context but lack comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences and a bullet-like Args section. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. No wasted words, though the Args formatting could be slightly more integrated into prose.
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?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well for parameters. However, with no annotations and an output schema (which isn't described), the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) and doesn't hint at return values. For a relationship-fetching tool, more context on relationship types or output structure would improve completeness.
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 crucial semantics: entity_type is enumerated with 11 specific values (artist, release, etc.) and entity_id is clarified as 'The MBID (must match the entity_type)'. This provides meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail MBID format or relationship-specific constraints.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get relationships for any entity type' with specific examples (band members, producers, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_artist_details or get_release_details by focusing on relationships rather than core entity details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with browse_entities or search_entities which might also involve relationships.
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 through examples (e.g., 'band members, producers, recording studios, Wikipedia links') and lists valid entity types, suggesting when to use it for relationship data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_artist_details (which might include relationships) or browse_entities, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned, lacking details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and lists key data points without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and data returned, though it lacks behavioral context due to no annotations, which slightly reduces completeness.
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 description implies the 'recording_id' parameter is used to fetch details for a specific recording, adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. Since there's only one parameter and the schema lacks descriptions, the description adequately compensates by clarifying the parameter's role, though it doesn't specify format or constraints.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recording details'), listing the specific data returned (artist, duration, ISRCs, genres, releases). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_release_details' or 'get_artist_details', which prevents a score of 5.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get_release_details' or 'get_artist_discography' might overlap in functionality, but the description offers no explicit context, exclusions, or comparisons to help an agent choose appropriately.
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 full burden. While it mentions the tool is for searching and provides parameter guidance, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when multiple filters are combined. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, and parameter documentation in a bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place - the first two sentences establish purpose and usage context, while the parameter documentation is essential given the 0% schema coverage. No wasted words.
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 an output schema (which handles return values), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral context about the search operation itself (like result format hints, error conditions, or performance characteristics) that would be helpful for an agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 5 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents, provides enum values for artist_type and gender, specifies the format for country (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2), and indicates the default for limit. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Search for artists with specific filters.' It specifies the resource (artists) and action (search with filters). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from all sibling tools beyond just 'search_entities' - there are other search tools like 'search_releases' and 'search_entities_fuzzy' that aren't contrasted.
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?
The description provides excellent usage guidance with explicit alternatives: 'Prefer search_entities for simple name searches; use this when filtering by country, type, or gender.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus a sibling alternative, including specific filter criteria that warrant its use.
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 full burden. It mentions filtering capabilities and a default limit, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement, usage guidelines, and parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 an output schema (which handles return values), 5 parameters with full semantic coverage in the description, and clear usage guidelines, the description is largely complete. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., permissions, rate limits) in the absence of annotations prevents a perfect score.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters: title, artist, label, barcode, and limit (including its default value of 5). It adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, specifying what each parameter filters by.
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 tool searches for releases with specific filters, providing a specific verb (search) and resource (releases). It distinguishes from sibling search_entities by mentioning filtering by artist, label, or barcode, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like search_artists or lookup_by_barcode.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Prefer search_entities for simple title searches; use this when filtering by artist, label, or barcode.' This clearly defines the context and names a specific alternative tool.
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 discloses that the tool returns URLs for front/back covers and thumbnails, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated).
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key usage notes and return details in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the returned URLs), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return types. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or data source constraints.
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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by clarifying that 'release_id' is required and specifying 'NOT a release_group_id,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definition. It does not explain the format or source of the release_id, leaving some gaps.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('cover art image URLs'), and the specific target ('for a specific release (edition) from the Cover Art Archive'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_release_details' by focusing on cover art URLs rather than general release metadata.
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 provides clear context by specifying 'Takes a release_id, NOT a release_group_id,' which helps differentiate it from tools like 'get_release_group_details.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_release_details' (which might include cover art) or 'search_releases' (for finding releases first).
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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search behavior (exact first, then fuzzy fallback) and lists supported entity types, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with mutation-like search operations.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and usage guidelines in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.
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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage well, but lacks details on parameters like 'limit' and behavioral aspects like error handling. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but not fully.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'artist', 'release', 'recording', 'label', and 'work' as supported entity types, which clarifies the 'entity_type' parameter, and implies 'query' is for search terms. However, it doesn't explain 'limit' or provide full semantics for all parameters, resulting in partial compensation.
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 performs 'typo-tolerant fuzzy search' with a specific fallback mechanism (exact search first, then fuzzy matching). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_entities' by emphasizing its tolerance for misspellings, making the purpose specific and differentiated.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when the query may contain misspellings (e.g., 'Bjork' -> 'Björk').' It also lists the supported entity types, providing clear context for its application without needing to specify exclusions or alternatives, as the misspelling focus inherently guides usage.
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 discloses that it fetches tracklists with durations, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and key behavioral detail (durations), while the second provides critical usage guidance and sibling differentiation. There's zero wasted language and it's effectively 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with good semantic clarification in the description, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is quite complete. The main gap is the lack of behavioral transparency details that annotations would normally provide, but the description does well with what it covers for this relatively simple lookup 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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates well by clarifying that the parameter must be a 'release_group_id (NOT a release_id)'. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, helping the agent understand the specific type of identifier required and what to avoid.
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 specific action ('Fetches the tracklist with durations') and resource ('for a release group'), distinguishing it from siblings by specifying it works with release groups rather than releases. It explicitly differentiates from get_release_details, making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Takes a release_group_id') versus alternatives ('For a specific release's tracklist, use get_release_details instead'). It clearly defines the context and names the specific sibling tool to use instead in different scenarios.
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 mentions paging behavior ('paged discography', 'offset') and default values, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'release groups' specifically entails.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.
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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, differentiation, and parameters. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them, but it could benefit from more behavioral context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'artist_id: The MBID', 'limit: Max results (default 25)', and 'offset: Paging offset'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on MBID format or paging constraints.
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 specific action ('Get a paged discography') and resource ('release groups for an artist'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_artist_details' which only shows the first 10 results. It explicitly identifies the scope as 'complete discographies'.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use this for complete discographies; get_artist_details only shows the first 10.' This directly compares it to a sibling tool and specifies the use case.
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 clarifies the input requirement (release_id vs. release_group_id) but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, all in three concise sentences with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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's complexity (simple lookup), 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and usage well but could add more behavioral context, such as error cases or response format hints.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds crucial meaning by specifying that 'release_id' refers to 'a specific edition' and distinguishing it from 'release_group_id', compensating well for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('tracklist with durations, barcode, and label for a specific release'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_album_tracks' by specifying it operates on a release_id rather than a release_group_id.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Takes a release_id...') and when not to ('NOT a release_group_id'), providing a clear alternative ('use get_album_tracks with a release_group_id') for different scenarios.
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 ('Get details'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what details are returned. The description adds some context about release groups containing releases, but lacks comprehensive behavioral information.
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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured.
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 an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well. However, it could improve by mentioning parameter semantics more explicitly or noting it's a read-only operation, but the output schema reduces the need for extensive detail.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the 'release_group_id' parameter, but provides semantic context: 'release group (the album/EP/single concept)' and 'contains one or more releases', which helps understand what the ID refers to. However, it doesn't specify format or source of the ID.
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 verb 'Get details' and the resource 'release group', specifying it's about the album/EP/single concept. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_release_details' by explaining that release groups contain releases, making the purpose specific and differentiated.
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?
The description explicitly provides when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use get_release_details for a specific edition's tracklist and barcode.' This gives clear guidance on tool selection based on the need for general concept details vs. specific edition information.
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 full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it supports Lucene syntax, explains entity hierarchy and ID constraints (MBIDs are type-specific and not interchangeable), and warns about search fallbacks. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by examples, usage guidelines, and entity hierarchy. Most sentences earn their place, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating some hierarchical details more tightly without losing clarity.
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?
Given the complexity of the tool (multiple entity types, Lucene syntax, sibling alternatives) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter context, and entity relationships, providing all necessary context for effective 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'entity_type' includes specific options like artist or release, and 'query' supports Lucene syntax with examples. However, it doesn't explicitly detail the 'limit' parameter's default or range, leaving a minor gap.
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 searches for MusicBrainz entities with specific examples of entity types (artist, release, recording, etc.) and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'search_entities_fuzzy' as an alternative for typo-tolerant matching. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining it's the 'PRIMARY DATA SOURCE' for searching artists, releases, or recordings.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it specifies to use 'search_entities_fuzzy' if exact and broader searches return 0 results. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating this is for general entity searching, while others like 'get_artist_details' or 'search_artists' serve more specific purposes.
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 full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), specifies what data is returned, and importantly reveals the limitation of showing 'first 10 release groups' rather than all. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational 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?
Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence delivers core functionality with specific data points. Second sentence provides crucial usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), no annotations, and simple single-parameter input, the description is complete. It covers purpose, data returned, limitations, and sibling differentiation - exactly what's needed for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description doesn't explicitly mention the 'artist_id' parameter. However, it strongly implies the need for artist identification through context ('about an artist'), and the tool's purpose is clear enough that the parameter's role is reasonably inferable. For a single-parameter tool, this is acceptable.
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 specific action ('Get comprehensive info') and resource ('about an artist'), listing the exact data included (aliases, tags, genres, discography with MBIDs). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_artist_discography' by noting this tool shows only first 10 release groups versus the full paged list.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'use get_artist_discography for the full paged list' directly names the sibling tool for extended discography needs. This creates clear boundaries between tools for different use cases.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: paging support (implied by 'with paging' and offset/limit parameters), use cases (e.g., 'getting complete discographies'), and constraints (e.g., 'max 100' for limit). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are relevant for a tool with no 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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage examples and detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and constraints, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. This provides sufficient context for effective tool selection and 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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining all parameters in the 'Args' section. It clarifies the meaning of entity_type, linked_type, linked_id, limit, and offset, including examples and constraints (e.g., 'max 100' for limit), adding significant value beyond the bare 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse MusicBrainz entities linked to another entity, with paging.' It specifies the verb (browse), resource (MusicBrainz entities), and key constraint (linked to another entity), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_entities or get_artist_discography by focusing on linked relationships rather than searches or direct details.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Common combinations' listing specific scenarios (e.g., 'release-groups by artist: full discography'), which helps differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_artist_discography or search_entities. It implicitly suggests this tool is for browsing linked entities rather than standalone searches or details.
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-musicbrainz MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zas/mcp-musicbrainz/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zas/mcp-musicbrainz)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-musicbrainz MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zas/mcp-musicbrainz/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zas/mcp-musicbrainz)

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/zas/mcp-musicbrainz'

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