Sound Fetch Tool
sound-fetch-toolFetch a public sound by its URL.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public sound URL to fetch. |
sound-fetch-toolFetch a public sound by its URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public sound URL to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input 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"
+]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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.