mcp-audible

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: searching, fetching details, viewing library/wishlist, adding to wishlist, and checking credits. There is no meaningful overlap between tools, and an agent can easily choose the correct one.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_, search_, and add_ as clear action prefixes. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped size for an Audible assistant covering discovery, details, library, wishlist, and credits. Each tool represents a meaningful capability without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness3/5
The core read and add flows are covered, but there is an obvious missing operation: remove_from_wishlist since add_to_wishlist exists. The surface also lacks any library management or playback-related actions, though those may be outside the intended scope.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
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 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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('add') but does not address idempotency, authentication requirements, error behavior, or effects when the item is already in the wishlist. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.
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, focused sentence with no wasted words. The action verb is front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool, and the description covers the core action and parameter. However, because it is a mutation with no output schema or annotations, an agent would benefit from additional context about expected side effects and response behavior. The description is adequate 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the asin parameter is fully described as the Audible ASIN of the audiobook to add. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource (an audiobook to the user's Audible wishlist). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_wishlist, which retrieves the wishlist, and search_audiobooks, which searches for audiobooks.
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. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.
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 disclosing behavior. It only states the basic search action and target fields, but does not mention return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or whether authentication or side effects are involved. Some behavior is self-evident from the name, but meaningful gaps remain.
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 or redundancy. Every word earns its place and the key scoping details come early.
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 and parameters are fully documented, but with no output schema the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of results or item identifiers). This is a notable gap, though the search semantics make the likely outcome inferable. Overall adequate but not fully 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by title, author, or narrator' merely echoes the search_by enum already present in the schema, adding no substantive meaning. It does not clarify query syntax or the default general search behavior beyond what the schema states.
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 ('Search'), the resource ('audiobooks on Audible'), and the search dimensions ('by title, author, or narrator'). It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which focus on details, library, wishlist, and credits rather than searching.
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 implies usage when the user needs to find audiobooks by metadata fields, while siblings cover details or collection actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or when an alternative would be better, so it falls 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It usefully indicates the tool returns detailed information including runtime, reviews, and sample, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation beyond the implication of the verb 'get'.
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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and appends the most relevant data categories. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the input (ASIN via schema) and the kind of output expected. It could additionally note behavior for invalid or missing ASINs, but overall it gives an agent enough to understand the tool's role.
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%, and the ASIN parameter is already clearly described as the unique Audible identifier. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific audiobook'. It also lists concrete content areas (runtime, reviews, sample), and the 'specific audiobook' wording clearly distinguishes it from sibling search_audiobooks.
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 tool is for retrieving details about one known audiobook, which gives a basic sense of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_audiobooks or other siblings, nor does it mention 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 alone must convey behavioral transparency. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.
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 conveys both the primary purpose and the scope of information returned. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff.
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 simplicity — no parameters and no output schema — the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it provides. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without further clarification, though it could mention the output format.
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 is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 for no params applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is appropriate 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 clearly states the tool checks available Audible credits and membership information, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_audiobooks or get_library, which cover different content areas.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context cues beyond the resource name, leaving an agent to infer that it is for credit-related queries rather than library or wishlist operations.
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 bears full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It correctly implies a non-destructive 'list' operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or potential absence of results. For a simple read tool this is acceptable, but richer context (e.g., returning a paginated array) would improve transparency.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning; there is no redundancy or extraneous detail.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and scope. It does not explicitly describe return format or pagination, but the schema parameter description helps fill that gap. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.
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 only parameter, 'page', is fully described in the input schema with type, purpose, and default. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource ('audiobooks in the user's Audible library'), clearly indicating a read-only browse operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_audiobooks (search across catalog) and get_wishlist (items saved to wishlist), so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.
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 clearly conveys the context of use: browsing audiobooks the user owns. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the scope ('user's Audible library') is distinct enough from the sibling names that an agent can infer when to invoke it. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, but the context is unambiguous.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only list operation, but it does not mention what fields are returned, whether pagination is involved, authentication requirements, or how this response differs from get_library. The behavioral information is minimal but not misleading.
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 sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. Excellent conciseness.
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 no output schema, the description covers the essential action and scope. The 'wishlist' qualifier helps differentiate it from get_library. It omits return-format details, but given the tool's simplicity, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it.
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 is fully covered (100%) and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter meaning needs to be explained.
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 the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'audiobooks in the user's Audible wishlist.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as search_audiobooks (catalog search), get_library (the user's library, not wishlist), and add_to_wishlist (a write operation). No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 whenever the user's wishlist needs to be retrieved, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. An agent might struggle to differentiate between get_wishlist and get_library, since both return collections of audiobooks; the description offers no comparative context.
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-audible MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-audible/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-audible)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-audible MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-audible/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/markswendsen-code/mcp-audible)

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/markswendsen-code/mcp-audible'

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