sound-search-toolSearch 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / record_sourceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional analytics source label for this search request.",
+ "type": "string"
+}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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.