Search Deezer preview tracks by song, artist, or album. Use this when the user provides a song string but no MP3/WAV/FLAC file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 10, max 20) | |
| query | Yes | Song, artist, or album search query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are 'Deezer preview tracks,' which clarifies the content scope but does not disclose response format, error behavior, or rate limits. This is moderate value beyond annotations.
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 action and scope. It is concise, has zero waste, and earns its place.
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 simple search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It lacks explicit detail about the return payload, but that is not critical given the low complexity and existing schema coverage.
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 100%, and the description's mention of 'by song, artist, or album' simply mirrors the query parameter's existing description. No additional semantic value is added for the parameters.
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 the tool searches Deezer preview tracks by song, artist, or album. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_media by specifying 'Deezer preview tracks' and the file-absence use case.
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 a clear usage condition: 'when the user provides a song string but no MP3/WAV/FLAC file.' This implies an alternative path for file uploads, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not conditions, 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action or resource. Groups like compels, lighting cues, webhooks, and account are clearly separated, and even similar tools (create_compel vs create_compel_from_music) have well-defined differences in input source.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., cancel_compel, launch_lighting_cue, register_webhook). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.
With 30 tools, the server is above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the scope includes multiple subdomains, the high number adds cognitive load and risks selection errors for an agent.
Core workflows are present (create, read, cancel, list, search, render), but missing update/delete for compels and media, and no way to modify render configuration beyond defaults.