search_song_historyReturns the most recently played songs (up to 25). Optionally filter by keyword in title or artist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Keyword to filter by title or artist |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds the limit of 25 and filter capability, but overall behavioral transparency is adequately handled by 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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 simplicity (1 optional param, output schema present), the description is complete enough to guide the agent.
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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter. The description echoes the schema's description, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 what the tool does: returns recently played songs with a limit and optional filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_song_request_library.
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 clear context on use (recent songs, up to 25, optional filter) but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct across categories (radio, local info, spiritual, listener management), but there is notable overlap: get_emergency_alerts and get_nws_alerts both provide alerts, and get_or_create_listener overlaps with register_listener. Also, get_chakra_frequencies, get_chakra_guide, and get_solfeggio are very similar. While descriptions help differentiate, agents may still struggle to select the right tool.
All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_weather, submit_song_request, log_listener_history). The verbs are predictable (get, search, submit, log, register, update) and there are no deviations like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 45 tools, the set is overgrown for a radio station server. Many tools are hyper-specific (e.g., separate tools for chakra frequencies, guide, and solfeggio; moon phase, sun times, and stargazing conditions). Consolidating similar functions would reduce cognitive load and improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range: radio operations, listener management, local news/weather, outdoor guides, spiritual content, etc. However, there are notable gaps: no tool to fetch full news articles (only headlines), no way to manage show schedules, and no donation or station info tools. Also, listener profile management is split across multiple tools, which feels incomplete.