R
Category needed AI App Connected· 100% uptime

Record

by Centre for Arts, Sports and Technology(Community)

Available in:USFRGBESKRIN
Available on: ChatGPT

Visitor takeaway

52/100

Fair AI-discovery coverage across description, prompts, keywords, visuals, tool metadata, health, and freshness.

Routing category

Needs category

This listing is missing a primary category, which weakens browse placement and AI recommendation routing.

Connector evidence

Reachable

Tedix can reach this MCP endpoint and can show live capability evidence when tools are discovered.

Directory freshness

1d ago

Catalog metadata was refreshed 1d ago (October 22, 2026).

Description

Record is an entertainment-technology research and discovery platform. Use Record to discover companies working across live entertainment, venues, touring, music, broadcast and related technology. Search the Record index to find relevant companies, research what they do, explore company profiles, compare capabilities and investigate technology areas shaping entertainment. Record is designed for entertainment professionals, researchers, strategists, producers, venues, promoters, technology teams and others who need structured information about the entertainment-technology landscape.

Capabilities

No special capabilities listed

AI Agent Discovery

Record is indexed by Tedix as a structured ai application listing for AI assistants, search crawlers, and users comparing agent-ready apps.

  • Record has no primary catalog category yet; Tedix treats this as a routing gap for browse and recommendation surfaces.
  • Developer: Centre for Arts, Sports and Technology.
  • Connector type: AI-Powered App.
  • Current connector status: Connected.
  • Observed distribution channels: chatgpt.
  • Available regions: US, FR, GB, ES, KR, IN.

Use this page to understand whether Record is relevant for general AI app workflows in AI assistants.

For MCP discovery, this listing helps crawlers connect Record to tool, resource, prompt, and server-health signals instead of treating it as a generic directory entry.

The canonical Tedix directory URL is https://tedix.dev/apps/record/.

Crawlable Profile

Source and availability

Tedix identifies Record from Upstream Mcp tool source; Store sources: ChatGPT app store; Distribution: Ecosystem Directory; Tenant install: A platform catalog operator must create or reconcile the base app before tenants can install this entry.. Availability is reported for US, FR, GB, ES, KR, IN.

Auth, tools, and actions

Authentication: Requires Login. No special capability flags are currently listed. Current MCP inventory reports 7 tools, 0 resources, and 0 prompts.

  • Check the CAST Record · Read-only action

    Check the CAST Record — a curated index of entertainment-technology companies (venues, live events, touring, broadcast, music tech) — for companies matching a challenge, need or capability. Use whenever someone says 'check Record', 'check the Record', 'ask Record', or wants entertainment/venue tech vendors. Present the answer as given under the heading 'Record results', each company linked to its record_url so the reader can open the full profile, and add nothing of your own; the result's `present` field says how. A question about what is changing, where an area is heading or trends is answered by depth researched (its brief says where the field is moving, from Record's dated readings) together with market_landscape (the counts), never by quick, which returns companies only. quick returns ranked matches in a few seconds; researched adds a synthesised answer and per-company reasoning but takes about half a minute, longer for a plan. If the person has shared a strategic plan, board paper, tender or brief with you, pass it: either as org_context, or by including the relevant part in the question itself. Record then ranks for fit against it and returns `brief` — the plan assessed against where the field is moving, priority by priority, with the companies last — and brief_read, the working behind it.

  • Comparable public contracts · Read-only action

    What comparable buyers ACTUALLY PAID, from published public-sector award notices. Use it whenever price, budget or value for money comes up — 'what should we budget for access control', 'is 40k reasonable for a ticketing platform', 'what do venues pay for this'. Record declines to make a pricing judgement and that does not change; this hands over the evidence underneath it instead. Present the MEDIAN and the range, never a mean — procurement values are wildly skewed and one framework covering forty authorities sits in the same set as a single venue's purchase. Quote every figure with its buyer, date and notice link, and say plainly that scope differs between notices (licences alone versus licences plus five years of support), so this is a range to reason from and not a price for the reader's own situation. Reached by 'ask Record what venues pay for this' as much as by a bare question. Present as given; add nothing of your own. Fast (~1s).

  • Get a company profile · Read-only action

    Fetch the full CAST Record profile for one company by its Record slug (as returned by check_record). Present it as given; add nothing of your own. Fast (~1s).

  • Index statistics · Read-only action

    Coverage and freshness statistics for the CAST Record index (recent changes, update cadence). No input. This is also where 'ask Record what it covers' belongs. Present as given; add nothing of your own. Fast (~1s).

  • Look up a company · Read-only action

    Check whether a specific company is already in the CAST Record index, by website domain (preferred) or name. Use this for 'is X on Record?' questions rather than searching, including when it is put as 'ask Record whether X is listed'. Fast (~1s).

  • Market landscape · Read-only action

    COUNTS, not a search. Use this — never check_record — whenever the question is about the shape of the field rather than about which companies to shortlist: where the opportunity is, what is underbuilt, which categories are growing or converging, what is being built in one region versus another, which problems have the most companies chasing them, what people are asking for and not finding. check_record answers those with a similarity search, which cannot count and will present ten retrieved rows as a finding about the industry. This returns arithmetic over the whole index instead: companies by category, coverage growth, stated region with the unstated count beside it, founding years, which PROBLEM DOMAINS the reporting is concentrating in (`news.problems` — the axis that aggregates, and the one to read for where the field is under pressure; `news.themes` is per-story prose and is filtered to labels carried by more than one reading, so it is often short), what it connects, and — the one measure of DEMAND rather than supply — the needs that reached Record and found nothing. Every figure carries its window and its population. Read the `reading` field before quoting any of them, and follow it: quote the counts as given and add no read of your own. Never call this to add to an answer another tool already gave, a brief above all; only when the reader asks about the field itself. Reached by 'ask Record where the field is heading' as much as by a bare question. Takes 3-6s.

  • Who works with whom · Read-only action

    The REVERSE lookup, and not a search. Use it when the reader already has a system they cannot replace, or names an organisation and wants to know who serves it: 'what works alongside Tessitura', 'which vendors integrate with Spektrix', 'which suppliers name the OVO Hydro as a customer'. check_record cannot answer these — it finds companies that DO a thing, not companies that NAME a thing. Both lists here come from names each company published on its own integrations or customers page, matched exactly. Absence is never a denial: say a company 'does not name it' rather than 'does not support it', because many publish no list at all. `names_as_customer` is a published logo and never private intelligence about what an organisation runs. `named_by_venues`, when present, is the operating stack around it at the venues themselves: of the venues Record has read that name it on their own pages, how many also name each other supplier, given only from 25 such venues; quote every count with its base and date. Reached by 'ask Record what works with X' as much as by a bare question. Present as given; add nothing of your own. Fast (~1s).

Verification freshness

  • Catalog synced1d ago (October 22, 2026)
  • Connector checked6h ago (October 23, 2026)
  • MCP scanned6h ago (October 23, 2026)
  • Directory updated1d ago (October 22, 2026)

Publisher Intelligence

Public trust signals for visitors and practical recommendations for publishers. Use this section to understand what Tedix can verify today and what would make the app easier for AI agents to find.

Visitor takeaway

52/100

Fair AI-discovery coverage across description, prompts, keywords, visuals, tool metadata, health, and freshness.

Routing category

Needs category

This listing is missing a primary category, which weakens browse placement and AI recommendation routing.

Connector evidence

Reachable

Tedix can reach this MCP endpoint and can show live capability evidence when tools are discovered.

Directory freshness

1d ago

Catalog metadata was refreshed 1d ago (October 22, 2026).

Server Statuscast-record v0.1.0

7
Tools
0
Resources
0
Prompts
https://record.the-cast.org/api/mcp/open

Last checked: 6h ago

Server Instructions

The CAST Record is a curated, continuously updated index of entertainment-technology companies (venues, live events, touring, broadcast, music tech), with company profiles extracted and verbatim-verified from each company's own website. People summon Record by name — 'ask Record', 'check Record', 'check the Record' — and that is an explicit instruction to use these tools: never answer a question put that way from what you already know. Route it to the tool that fits rather than to search by default: check_record for which companies do a thing, works_with for what runs alongside a named system or who names an organisation as a customer, comparable_awards for what buyers actually paid, market_landscape for the shape of the field, lookup_company for whether one company is listed, index_stats for coverage. Research workflow: (1) check_record with depth 'quick' to scout; (2) depth 'researched' for a shortlist — it returns a synthesised answer, per-company reasoning, and verified facts (pricing_model, deployment, compliance, sectors_served) where the company's own site states them; (3) get_company on each finalist — its profile_full field contains cited sections (what it does, capabilities, pricing, trust & compliance, customers) where every claim lists the source pages it came from. Quote those cited facts rather than generalising. A missing fact means the company's website does not state it — never treat absence as evidence against a company. When a response carries `known_leaders`, name those first in a single short line as the ones the reader will likely already know, then present `results` as the ones they might not be across — the index withholds the obvious names from `results` on purpose, so their absence there is a deliberate editorial choice and never a coverage gap. Present results under the heading 'Record results' and link each company to its record_url. Every result from every tool is Record's answer and is complete: show it as Record wrote it and add nothing of your own — no analysis, commentary, caveats, extra sections, or a read of the index or the market — and do not call another Record tool to extend an answer unless the user asks. Do not editorialise about the index's composition, coverage, or data quality unless the user explicitly asks about the index itself.

Technical Details
Connection Latency1.9s
30-Day Uptime100.0%

Tools(7)

Showing 7 of 7 tools

Sorted by toolName
FlagsTest
check_record
Check the CAST Record — a curated index of entertainment-technology companies (venues, live events, touring, broadcast, music tech) — for companies matching a challenge, need or capability. Use whenever someone says 'check Record', 'check the Record', 'ask Record', or wants entertainment/venue tech vendors. Present the answer as given under the heading 'Record results', each company linked to its record_url so the reader can open the full profile, and add nothing of your own; the result's `present` field says how. A question about what is changing, where an area is heading or trends is answered by depth researched (its brief says where the field is moving, from Record's dated readings) together with market_landscape (the counts), never by quick, which returns companies only. quick returns ranked matches in a few seconds; researched adds a synthesised answer and per-company reasoning but takes about half a minute, longer for a plan. If the person has shared a strategic plan, board paper, tender or brief with you, pass it: either as org_context, or by including the relevant part in the question itself. Record then ranks for fit against it and returns `brief` — the plan assessed against where the field is moving, priority by priority, with the companies last — and brief_read, the working behind it.
read-only
Not tested
——
comparable_awards
What comparable buyers ACTUALLY PAID, from published public-sector award notices. Use it whenever price, budget or value for money comes up — 'what should we budget for access control', 'is 40k reasonable for a ticketing platform', 'what do venues pay for this'. Record declines to make a pricing judgement and that does not change; this hands over the evidence underneath it instead. Present the MEDIAN and the range, never a mean — procurement values are wildly skewed and one framework covering forty authorities sits in the same set as a single venue's purchase. Quote every figure with its buyer, date and notice link, and say plainly that scope differs between notices (licences alone versus licences plus five years of support), so this is a range to reason from and not a price for the reader's own situation. Reached by 'ask Record what venues pay for this' as much as by a bare question. Present as given; add nothing of your own. Fast (~1s).
read-only
Not tested
——
get_company
Fetch the full CAST Record profile for one company by its Record slug (as returned by check_record). Present it as given; add nothing of your own. Fast (~1s).
read-only
Not tested
——
index_stats
Coverage and freshness statistics for the CAST Record index (recent changes, update cadence). No input. This is also where 'ask Record what it covers' belongs. Present as given; add nothing of your own. Fast (~1s).
read-only
Not tested
——
lookup_company
Check whether a specific company is already in the CAST Record index, by website domain (preferred) or name. Use this for 'is X on Record?' questions rather than searching, including when it is put as 'ask Record whether X is listed'. Fast (~1s).
read-only
Not tested
——
market_landscape
COUNTS, not a search. Use this — never check_record — whenever the question is about the shape of the field rather than about which companies to shortlist: where the opportunity is, what is underbuilt, which categories are growing or converging, what is being built in one region versus another, which problems have the most companies chasing them, what people are asking for and not finding. check_record answers those with a similarity search, which cannot count and will present ten retrieved rows as a finding about the industry. This returns arithmetic over the whole index instead: companies by category, coverage growth, stated region with the unstated count beside it, founding years, which PROBLEM DOMAINS the reporting is concentrating in (`news.problems` — the axis that aggregates, and the one to read for where the field is under pressure; `news.themes` is per-story prose and is filtered to labels carried by more than one reading, so it is often short), what it connects, and — the one measure of DEMAND rather than supply — the needs that reached Record and found nothing. Every figure carries its window and its population. Read the `reading` field before quoting any of them, and follow it: quote the counts as given and add no read of your own. Never call this to add to an answer another tool already gave, a brief above all; only when the reader asks about the field itself. Reached by 'ask Record where the field is heading' as much as by a bare question. Takes 3-6s.
read-only
Not tested
——
works_with
The REVERSE lookup, and not a search. Use it when the reader already has a system they cannot replace, or names an organisation and wants to know who serves it: 'what works alongside Tessitura', 'which vendors integrate with Spektrix', 'which suppliers name the OVO Hydro as a customer'. check_record cannot answer these — it finds companies that DO a thing, not companies that NAME a thing. Both lists here come from names each company published on its own integrations or customers page, matched exactly. Absence is never a denial: say a company 'does not name it' rather than 'does not support it', because many publish no list at all. `names_as_customer` is a published logo and never private intelligence about what an organisation runs. `named_by_venues`, when present, is the operating stack around it at the venues themselves: of the venues Record has read that name it on their own pages, how many also name each other supplier, given only from 25 such venues; quote every count with its base and date. Reached by 'ask Record what works with X' as much as by a bare question. Present as given; add nothing of your own. Fast (~1s).
read-only
Not tested
——

Discoverability Score

Fair

52 / 100

x

How easily AI agents can find this app from its current catalog metadata.

  • Description quality
    20/20
  • Example prompts
    0/20
  • Keyword coverage
    0/15
  • Category clarity
    0/5
  • Tool metadata
    20/20
  • Visual assets
    0/20
  • Endpoint health
    10/10
  • Data freshness
    15/15

How to Improve

Add at least 2 example prompts. Prompt examples strongly improve app matching and click-through intent.

Increase keyword coverage (discovery + trigger) to improve retrieval for long-tail queries.

Choose a primary catalog category so visitors and AI agents can route this app into the right browse and recommendation surfaces.

Provide a stable HTTPS logo URL (avoid connectors://) so cards render consistently across clients.

Add at least 2 screenshots that show real workflows to increase confidence and conversion.

Read the full discoverability guide →

Technical Details

Status
ENABLED
Type
AI-Powered App
Auth
Requires Login
Listed on
ChatGPT
Added
October 21, 2026
Last synced
1d ago
Last checked
6h ago
Version
0.1.0
Distribution
Ecosystem Directory

All app names, logos, and trademarks belong to their respective owners.