Find sonically similar tracks to a song (closest by sound). Paste a Bandcamp, YouTube or SoundCloud link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying input format (paste a link), platforms accepted, and that similarity is based on sound, not metadata. No contradiction with annotations.
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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Find sonically similar tracks'), then adds the crucial input guidance. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.
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 that there is an output schema (likely describing the similar tracks returned), the description does not need to explain what the tool returns. The single parameter is fully explained, annotations cover safety, and the purpose is crystal clear. The complexity is low, so the description is complete.
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 schema has only one parameter (url) with 0% coverage (no description in schema). The tool description compensates by explaining that the URL must be a Bandcamp, YouTube, or SoundCloud link, giving the parameter meaning beyond the schema alone.
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 that this tool finds sonically similar tracks to a given song using a link. It specifies the supported platforms (Bandcamp, YouTube, SoundCloud), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deep_match or generate_playlist.
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 tells the user to paste a link, which implies when to use it: when you have a specific song URL and want similar tracks. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like deep_match, but the supported URL types give clear 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: deep_match for technical DJ matching, find_similar for general sonic similarity, generate_playlist for creating full sets, inspire_me for personalized discovery, playlist_match for multi-track centroid matching, and surprise_me for broad discovery. However, inspire_me and surprise_me both relate to discovery with overlap in scope, causing minor ambiguity.
Tool names use a mix of verbs and descriptive phrases (deep_match, find_similar, generate_playlist, inspire_me, playlist_match, surprise_me). The pattern is not fully consistent; some use verb_noun (generate_playlist) while others use verb_adjective (find_similar) or are more abstract (inspire_me). Not chaotic but lacks a uniform structure.
6 tools is well-scoped for a music discovery server. Each tool covers a specific function without redundancy, covering technical matching, similarity search, playlist generation, personalized discovery, group matching, and broad exploration. The number feels balanced and appropriate.
The tools cover core music discovery workflows: single-track matching, multi-track centroid matching, playlist generation with energy flow, and personalized/random discovery. Minor gaps include lack of explicit CRUD for user playlists beyond generation and no tools for browsing or managing user history directly.
