Search royalty-free BGM and sound effects (commercial use OK, no credit) and game fan arrangements.
Get one track by id, together with related tracks from the same catalog. Returns the YouTube URL with the track's start position, the track page, and the download URL when the audio is distributed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Track id, as returned by search_tracks. | |
| locale | No | Language for titles and descriptions in the response. Defaults to ja. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses return values (YouTube URL, track page, download URL) and related tracks, which is useful. But it does not mention potential failure modes, authorization, or whether the operation is purely read-only, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Get one track by id', then adds related tracks and return specifics. No filler or redundant phrasing; it is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description mentions key return elements (URLs, related tracks), it does not outline the full response structure, such as whether the result is a flat object or includes nested related tracks. Without an output schema, this gap could leave agents uncertain about the exact data shape, though the tool is simple.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters (id and locale) with 100% description coverage. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, merely saying 'Get one track by id' and not elaborating on locale usage or id format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool retrieves one track by ID and also fetches related tracks from the same catalog. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (search_tracks and list_tags) by focusing on a single track fetch with supplementary data, using a clear verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for fetching a specific track, and the schema parameter id references 'as returned by search_tracks', which connects it to the search flow. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, though the siblings are evident from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List every tag that can be passed to search_tracks, grouped by production use, genre, mood, usage, scene, source game, and usage rights, with how many tracks carry each tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the output shape (grouped tags with track counts) and that the list is exhaustive. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is one well-structured sentence that packs in the action, the output, grouping categories, and count information. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a sufficiently complete contract: every tag, the grouping dimensions, and per-tag counts. It omits only explicit return-format details, which are not critical at this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter descriptions are necessary, and the schema already confirms the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List every tag') and resource, adding scope with the categories and counts. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by tying the output to search_tracks usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it lists exactly the tags that can be passed to search_tracks, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use case is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search Arcalune Music for royalty-free BGM, sound effects, video game fan arrangements, and original vocal songs. Every track streams on YouTube, and the returned youtubeUrl jumps straight to where that track starts. When presenting results to a user, always include the youtubeUrl so they can listen to the track. Free BGM and sound effects allow commercial use without credit; fan arrangements and vocal songs are streaming-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Result order. plays30d / playsAll / favorites / downloads30d / downloadsAll rank by popularity, newest by publish date, title alphabetically. Defaults to default (newest first). | |
| tags | No | Tag ids to filter by (OR condition). Call list_tags first to get valid ids. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of tracks to return (default 10). | |
| query | No | Free text matched against titles, descriptions, and tag names in both Japanese and English (e.g. 'lofi study', '戦闘'). | |
| locale | No | Language for titles and descriptions in the response. Defaults to ja. | |
| category | No | bgm = free BGM and original music, se = sound effects, arrangement = streaming-only fan arrangements, song = streaming-only original vocal songs, all = everything. Defaults to all. | |
| downloadableOnly | No | Only return tracks whose audio file can be downloaded. Fan arrangements never qualify. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses genuinely useful behavior: every track is streamable on YouTube, the returned youtubeUrl points to the exact start position, and licensing differs by category (commercial use vs streaming-only). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Search' and the absence of any mutating language serve that role well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, opening with the main purpose and then adding only high-value context about youtubeUrl and licensing terms. It is slightly redundant between the YouTube sentences, but it is still focused and well-structured for a tool with this many parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job covering licensing constraints, output behavior, and user-presentation requirements. It does not describe the full track response shape or mention the tag-preparation workflow with list_tags, but the schema already provides substantial parameter guidance and this is adequately complete for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported as 100%, and every parameter already has a detailed explanation including enum meaning, defaults, bounds, and behavior. The prose does not add parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb ('Search') and a named resource ('Arcalune Music'), and it enumerates the content types covered: BGM, sound effects, fan arrangements, and vocal songs. This distinguishes it clearly from get_track and list_tags even before looking at the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly establishes when this tool is appropriate: searching for Arcalune Music tracks and any supporting material a user might listen to. It gives a strong output-time instruction: always include the youtubeUrl when presenting results. It does not explicitly route between get_track and list_tags, but the search-focused purpose is clear enough to avoid mis-selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
search_tracks2 fields changedInput schema / properties / category / descriptionPrevious value: -"bgm = free BGM and original music, se = sound effects, arrangement = streaming-only fan arrangements, all = everything. Defaults to all."New value: +"bgm = free BGM and original music, se = sound effects, arrangement = streaming-only fan arrangements, song = streaming-only original vocal songs, all = everything. Defaults to all."Input schema / properties / category / enumPrevious value: -[
- "all",
- "bgm",
- "se",
- "arrangement"
-]New value: +[
+ "all",
+ "bgm",
+ "se",
+ "song",
+ "arrangement"
+]get_tracklist_tagssearch_tracksClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Search 18,594 production-music cues by mood, sound and exact runtime. Instant preview links.
Free, copyright-safe AI music library for video creators and AI agents.
Human-made production music for sync — search by brief or reference, preview, score to picture.
Free CC0 sound effects for agents: ask by role (button-click, coin), sets, or search 4,600+.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct role: search_tracks discovers tracks, get_track retrieves a specific track by ID, and list_tags supplies search metadata. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity in purpose.
All three tool names follow the same lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_track, list_tags, search_tracks. The naming convention is consistent and predictable.
Three tools is a compact but appropriate scope for a music catalog server: search, retrieve, and tag discovery cover the core workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the main discovery-to-listening flow: list_tags informs search, search_tracks finds tracks, and get_track provides specific track details and URLs. Minor potential gaps like pagination or playlist support are absent, but the core domain is well covered.
