A TikTok sound: title, author, duration, usage count. (1 credit)
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"url": "<url>"
},
"name": "tiktok_song"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | TikTok sound or video URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the credit cost ('1 credit'), which is genuinely useful operational context not present in annotations. It does not, however, describe the return shape beyond a field list, nor explain how behavior differs when a video URL is supplied instead of a sound URL.
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?
It is short and the credit cost is placed up front, so there is no filler. But it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of action, which makes it feel terse rather than efficient.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields plus the credit cost covers the essentials. It stops short of clarifying the sound-URL vs. video-URL duality and the sibling relationship, which are the remaining ambiguities an agent would face.
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% and the single parameter is documented as 'TikTok sound or video URL.' The description adds nothing about URL formats, accepted variants, or what happens with each URL type, so the 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 names the resource ('A TikTok sound') and enumerates the metadata it surfaces (title, author, duration, usage count), so an agent can infer it fetches sound details. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never contrasts itself with the sibling tiktok_song_videos, leaving the retrieval-vs-listing distinction implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative tiktok_song_videos for listing videos that use a sound. The presence of the url parameter is the only signal of invocation 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.