Searches for and retrieves high-quality stock music tracks based on the provided search query. Returns an array of music objects including the title, duration, audio download link, BPM, moods, and genres.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query string (e.g. 'dark', 'upbeat corporate'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a non-destructive operation ('searches for and retrieves') and specifies the return format (array of music objects with listed fields). This provides transparent behavior for a read-only search tool, though it does not disclose edge cases like empty results or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence serves a purpose: first describes the operation, second lists the return fields. No redundant or vague wording.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the input, purpose, and output fields comprehensively. It lacks minor details like handling of empty results or optional filters, but is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 fully documents the single parameter 'query' with an example. The description only restates that the tool works 'based on the provided search query', adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema 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 uses a specific verb ('searches for and retrieves') and a clear resource ('high-quality stock music tracks'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_sfx (sound effects). It clearly states the tool's purpose with no ambiguity.
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 the tool is for music (opposed to sound effects) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use it over get_sfx. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance, warranting a mid-range score.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_music for music tracks, get_sfx for sound effects, and usage_statistic for API quota monitoring. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
Two tools follow the verb_noun pattern (get_music, get_sfx), while usage_statistic lacks a verb and uses a noun phrase. This is a minor deviation but the names remain readable and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the server is slightly minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of searching music and SFX and checking usage. Each tool serves a distinct need, so the count is appropriate but on the lean side.
The core search and retrieval workflow for music and SFX is covered, and the usage tool supports monitoring. Minor gaps exist such as no browse-by-category or direct track-by-ID retrieval, but these are not critical for the basic use case.