Arcalune Music

Search tracks

search_tracks

Search Arcalune Music for royalty-free BGM, sound effects, video game fan arrangements, and original vocal songs. Every track streams on YouTube, and the returned youtubeUrl jumps straight to where that track starts. When presenting results to a user, always include the youtubeUrl so they can listen to the track. Free BGM and sound effects allow commercial use without credit; fan arrangements and vocal songs are streaming-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Result order. plays30d / playsAll / favorites / downloads30d / downloadsAll rank by popularity, newest by publish date, title alphabetically. Defaults to default (newest first).
`tags`	No	Tag ids to filter by (OR condition). Call list_tags first to get valid ids.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of tracks to return (default 10).
`query`	No	Free text matched against titles, descriptions, and tag names in both Japanese and English (e.g. 'lofi study', '戦闘').
`locale`	No	Language for titles and descriptions in the response. Defaults to ja.
`category`	No	bgm = free BGM and original music, se = sound effects, arrangement = streaming-only fan arrangements, song = streaming-only original vocal songs, all = everything. Defaults to all.
`downloadableOnly`	No	Only return tracks whose audio file can be downloaded. Fan arrangements never qualify.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses genuinely useful behavior: every track is streamable on YouTube, the returned youtubeUrl points to the exact start position, and licensing differs by category (commercial use vs streaming-only). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Search' and the absence of any mutating language serve that role well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, opening with the main purpose and then adding only high-value context about youtubeUrl and licensing terms. It is slightly redundant between the YouTube sentences, but it is still focused and well-structured for a tool with this many parameters.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job covering licensing constraints, output behavior, and user-presentation requirements. It does not describe the full track response shape or mention the tag-preparation workflow with list_tags, but the schema already provides substantial parameter guidance and this is adequately complete for a search tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is reported as 100%, and every parameter already has a detailed explanation including enum meaning, defaults, bounds, and behavior. The prose does not add parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 has a specific verb ('Search') and a named resource ('Arcalune Music'), and it enumerates the content types covered: BGM, sound effects, fan arrangements, and vocal songs. This distinguishes it clearly from get_track and list_tags even before looking at the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly establishes when this tool is appropriate: searching for Arcalune Music tracks and any supporting material a user might listen to. It gives a strong output-time instruction: always include the youtubeUrl when presenting results. It does not explicitly route between get_track and list_tags, but the search-focused purpose is clear enough to avoid mis-selection.

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

All Arcalune Music tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clearly distinct role: search_tracks discovers tracks, get_track retrieves a specific track by ID, and list_tags supplies search metadata. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All three tool names follow the same lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_track, list_tags, search_tracks. The naming convention is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a compact but appropriate scope for a music catalog server: search, retrieve, and tag discovery cover the core workflow without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main discovery-to-listening flow: list_tags informs search, search_tracks finds tracks, and get_track provides specific track details and URLs. Minor potential gaps like pagination or playlist support are absent, but the core domain is well covered.

Resources

Need Help?