artistArtist metadata by Deezer artist id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Artist ID | |
| name | No | Artist name | |
| nb_fan | No | Number of fans | |
| picture | No | Artist image URL | |
| nb_album | No | Number of albums |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 27
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Artist ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Artist name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "nb_album": {
+ "description": "Number of albums",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "nb_fan": {
+ "description": "Number of fans",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "picture": {
+ "description": "Artist image URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal context (use of Deezer ID) beyond annotations, which already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. It does not reveal additional behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words; perfectly concise for the information conveyed.
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 existence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple lookup, though it could hint at the returned fields (e.g., name, picture) for completeness.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description clarifies the single parameter's meaning ('by Deezer artist id'), compensating well but could specify format or source more precisely.
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 tool retrieves artist metadata using a Deezer artist ID, with a specific verb ('by') and resource ('metadata'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'artist_top'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'entity_profile' or 'artist_top'; the description lacks context for selection.
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.