get_v1_1_artistsArtists Group: Artists. Billing per call: 1 Credits. Agents can pay per call ($0.01 via x402/MPP, no API key).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_v1_1_artists"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Artist IDs (you can use commas) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the billing model (1 credit per call, payment method, no API key), which is a useful operational trait. However, it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, rate limits, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is limited to cost.
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 short but spends its two sentences on a vague phrase and billing details. It fails to front-load any functional purpose. The structure is not helpful for an agent; it is concise but at the cost of all substance.
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 the tool's low complexity (single param, no output schema), the description is still completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, making it impossible to distinguish from 30+ siblings. An agent cannot safely invoke it without external knowledge.
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% for the single 'ids' parameter, which already documents that it accepts comma-separated artist IDs with an example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles it.
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 says 'Artists Group: Artists.' which is essentially restating the tool name and title. It provides no verb, resource specificity, or distinction from the many sibling artist-related tools (e.g., artist_albums, artist_overview). An agent cannot tell what this endpoint actually retrieves.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the numerous artist-related alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, contexts, or exclusions. The only extra information is billing, which does not help select the correct endpoint.
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.