Music360 MCP

music360_search

Busca unificada em artistas, obras, fonogramas, produtos, contatos, contratos, notícias e tarefas.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "music360_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	Texto de busca.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Resultados da busca agrupados por entidade.
`success`	Yes	Indica se a operacao foi bem-sucedida.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJun 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Resultados da busca agrupados por entidade.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Indica se a operacao foi bem-sucedida.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJun 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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, but it only defines the search scope. It does not mention whether results are grouped by type, whether the search is fuzzy or exact, how limit applies, or what happens when there are no matches. This is a significant lack of transparency for a search 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 short sentence in Portuguese, efficiently stating the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool handles a broad multi-entity search with a limit parameter and no annotations, yet the description provides only the scope. While an output schema exists (reducing the need to document returns), there is no guidance on when to use it, what behavioral quirks exist, or how results are structured. For a tool of this complexity, the description is under-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 50% of parameters: query has a one-word description ('Texto de busca.'), while limit has none. The description itself adds no parameter detail, failing to explain how the query is matched or how the limit parameter behaves. Since the schema coverage is middling and the description does not compensate, parameter semantics are weak.

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 'unified search' with a specific list of resource types (artists, works, phonograms, products, contacts, contracts, news, tasks). This distinguishes it from the sibling get/list tools that target single entity types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 searching across multiple entity types as a unified entry point, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the get/list alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance is given on query syntax or how to use the limit parameter effectively.

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

All Music360 MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?