Skip to main content
Glama

DropTrack

by io.github.droptrack

DropTrack Get Comments

droptrack_get_comments
Read-only

Get timestamped comments for a track, across a playlist, or within a campaign.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results per page
cursorNoPagination cursor (offset)
scopeIdYesTrack ID, playlist ID, or campaign ID matching scopeType
scopeTypeNoComment scope to querytrack
versionIdNoOptional track version ID when scopeType is track

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoStructured DropTrack result returned by this tool

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with that. The description adds the 'timestamped' nature of the returned comments and the three scope modes, which clarifies expected behavior without contradicting the 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates all supported scopes without redundant phrasing. 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?

Combined with the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, which scopes it supports, and its read-only safety profile. It omits no critical context needed to invoke the tool correctly, though it could briefly mention pagination behavior.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline expected for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('timestamped comments'), and the valid scopes (track, playlist, campaign). This fully distinguishes it from the many other get_* tools in the sibling list, none of which retrieve comments.

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 for when to use the tool: when timestamped comments are needed for a track, playlist, or campaign. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool offers comparable comment retrieval, so the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DropTrack toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but several clusters are easy to confuse: get_track_analysis vs get_track_analytics vs get_track_tags, plus analyze_audio/request_track_tagging/auto_tag_tracks overlap in the audio-analysis/tagging space. The descriptions do help separate them, so careful agents can disambiguate, but the naming alone creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the droptrack_ prefix, use snake_case, and follow a verb-first noun pattern, with list for collections and get for single items. Minor inconsistencies exist—add_contact vs create_contact_list, browse vs list, auto_tag_tracks—but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 55 tools this is far beyond the recommended 3-15 range and well over the 25+ threshold. Many tools are near variants of each other, especially company-level vs label-level ads, analytics, and wallet tools, inflating the surface area and making selection harder.

Completeness3/5

The set covers many domains and some workflows are complete, such as album art generation/polling/acceptance/deletion and track tagging request/poll/apply. However, core lifecycle gaps remain: no update or delete for campaigns, contacts, or contact lists, no playlist mutation tools, and AI press-release/bio workflows end at polling without a save or publish step.

Resources