search_song_request_librarySearch KAZM's requestable song library by artist or title keyword. Returns matching tracks the DJ can play on request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Artist name or song title to search for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations fully declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description needs minimal behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool returns 'matching tracks', but does not elaborate on pagination, limits, or empty result behavior. This is adequate given high annotation coverage.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple search tool with one parameter, high annotation coverage, and an output schema. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. Some might want explicit mention of the output schema, but not necessary.
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% with a single parameter 'query' described as 'Artist name or song title to search for'. The description adds 'by artist or title keyword', which mirrors the schema. No additional semantics are provided beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 the verb 'Search', the specific resource 'KAZM's requestable song library', and the search method 'by artist or title keyword'. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like search_song_history by specifying the context of requestable tracks.
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 searching songs the DJ can play on request, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like search_song_history, leaving some ambiguity.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in areas like listener management (get_listener_profile, get_or_create_listener, register_listener, update_listener_preference, log_listener_history) and alerts (get_emergency_alerts, get_nws_alerts, get_fire_restrictions, get_wildfire_perimeters). This can cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but verbs are inconsistent: 'get_', 'search_', 'submit_', 'log_', 'update_', 'register_', 'get_or_create_'. The listener management tools have varying verbs, and there is a mix of specific and generic names. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.
At 45 tools, the server is overloaded for its stated purpose as a radio station. It covers many unrelated domains (emergency alerts, hiking, chakras, etc.), which would be better split into separate, focused servers. The tool count feels excessive and unfocused.
While the radio-related tools (now playing, requests, schedule, listener management) cover core functionality, the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., hiking trails, chakras, sports scores) dilutes the server's purpose. There are obvious gaps in radio-specific features (e.g., no tool for playlist management or DJ scheduling) but an overabundance of peripheral tools.