Busca unificada em artistas, obras, fonogramas, produtos, contatos, contratos, notícias e tarefas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Texto de busca. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Resultados da busca agrupados por entidade. | |
| success | Yes | Indica se a operacao foi bem-sucedida. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting a specific entity or reference data. The get/list distinction is standard and unambiguous. Reference list tools are also clearly separated by domain.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'music360_'. Verbs are consistently 'get', 'list', 'search', or 'healthcheck', and the naming is uniform throughout. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
At 33 tools, the set is quite large, exceeding the threshold where tool count becomes unwieldy. While the domain has many entity types, the lack of mutation tools means many similar read-only list/get tools inflate the count without adding corresponding functionality.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a management system: there are no create, update, or delete tools for any entity. The reference list tools explicitly reference create tools like 'music360_create_fonograma' that do not exist, leaving clear dead ends and an inability to perform core operations.
