Search millions of sound and soundboards on 101soundboards.com
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct combination of resource (board or sound) and action (fetch or search), with no overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: {resource}-{action}-tool, using snake_case and predictable verbs (fetch, search).
4 tools is well-scoped for a read-only soundboard server, covering the essential operations of fetching and searching for both boards and sounds.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: fetch and search for each resource type, with no obvious missing operations for a public soundboard service.
Fetch a public soundboard by its URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public soundboard URL to fetch. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what is returned or side effects). Since annotations cover the main behavioral aspect, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with zero unnecessary words.
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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but does not mention the return value or any additional context (e.g., pagination, format). Leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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%. The description merely restates the schema's 'by its URL' without adding new meaning, format, or constraints. Baseline of 3.
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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'public soundboard' with the method 'by its URL', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like board-search-tool and sound-fetch-tool.
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 usage when a URL is available, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. Guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for public soundboards by search term. Optionally restrict the results to boards that have a text-to-speech engine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return. Defaults to 10; maximum 50. | |
| cursor | No | Cursor returned by a previous search request. | |
| only_tts | No | When true, return only boards that are AI text-to-speech boards. | |
| search_term | Yes | The term to search for. Minimum of 3 characters, maximum of 200 characters. | |
| record_source | No | Optional analytics source label for this search request. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the constraint that only 'public' soundboards are searched, which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination or other side effects, but the schema covers parameters like cursor and limit.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler. Ideal conciseness for a search tool.
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 description covers the core functionality and key filter. The schema handles parameter details (e.g., limit, cursor indicating pagination). No output schema exists, but search results are typically self-explanatory. Minor gap: could mention pagination briefly, but not necessary.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the search term and optional TTS filter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specifies the action ('Search for public soundboards by search term') and the resource ('public soundboards'). It also mentions an optional filter (TTS restriction), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sound-search-tool (sounds) and board-fetch-tool (single board fetch).
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 clear context for usage: searching public soundboards via a search term with an optional TTS filter. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling tools are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a public sound by its URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public sound URL to fetch. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations already disclose.
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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is necessary.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., sound data, metadata). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed about the response.
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%, so the schema fully documents the url parameter. The description does not add additional meaning, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'public sound', and the method 'by its URL'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like board-fetch-tool and sound-search-tool.
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 usage when a sound URL is available but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for public sounds by search term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return. Defaults to 10; maximum 50. | |
| cursor | No | Cursor returned by a previous search request. | |
| search_term | Yes | The sound to search for. Minimum of 3 characters, maximum of 200 characters. | |
| record_source | No | Optional analytics source label for this search request. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that it searches 'public sounds,' implying no authentication needed, and annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. No contradictions. However, it misses details like rate limits, result ordering, or that it returns paginated results.
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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
Given no output schema and no mention of return format, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It lacks information about pagination (cursor, limit) and what the response contains.
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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by search term' which is already in the search_term property description.
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 for public sounds by search term, distinguishing it from siblings like sound-fetch-tool (fetch a specific sound) and board-search-tool (search boards). However, it does not mention that it returns a list or supports pagination.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sound-fetch-tool for a specific sound, board-search-tool for boards). It only states the basic purpose without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
board-search-tool1 field changedInput schema / properties / record_sourceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional analytics source label for this search request.",
+ "type": "string"
+}sound-search-tool1 field changedInput schema / properties / record_sourceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional analytics source label for this search request.",
+ "type": "string"
+}board-fetch-tool3 fields changedInput schema / properties / board_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The ID of the public soundboard to fetch.",
- "minimum": 1,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The public soundboard URL to fetch.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "board_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "url"
+]sound-fetch-tool3 fields changedInput schema / properties / sound_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The ID of the public sound to fetch.",
- "minimum": 1,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The public sound URL to fetch.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "sound_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "url"
+]board-fetch-toolboard-search-toolsound-fetch-toolsound-search-toolSearch 18,594 production-music cues by mood, sound and exact runtime. Instant preview links.
Search 25,000+ meme templates and create shareable memes on memebo.at. Free, anonymous, no API key.
Search royalty-free BGM and sound effects (commercial use OK, no credit) and game fan arrangements.
Human-made production music for sync — search by brief or reference, preview, score to picture.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
