Get full metadata for one sound by slug, including download URLs, description and acoustics measured from the WAV (silence before the sound, where it peaks, audible length, attack, tail, brightness, levels, character labels).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Sound slug, e.g. 'impact-punch-01' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that acoustics are measured from the WAV file (silence, peak, attack, tail, brightness) — information an agent cannot get from structured fields and that clarifies the data's provenance and trustworthiness.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the field enumeration placed after so an agent can stop reading early if it only needs the purpose. Nothing is redundant — the enumeration substitutes for the absent output schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly (download URLs, description, acoustic measurements). It does not mention behavior on an unknown slug (error vs empty) or any rate/auth constraints, which are the only remaining gaps for a simple read tool.
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 schema itself supplies the example format ('impact-punch-01'). The description only restates that the slug identifies a single sound, adding no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema; 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?
Specific verb (get) plus resource (full metadata for one sound) plus lookup key (slug), and it enumerates exactly what comes back. 'One sound by slug' cleanly separates it from search_sounds (listing/querying) and change_sound (mutation) without needing to name them.
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 phrase 'by slug' implies a slug must already be known (presumably from search_sounds), but the description never states when to use this versus search_sounds or get_generation, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.