album_infoFetch Last.fm album metadata by artist and album name (or MusicBrainz ID): track listing, listener/play counts, wiki summary, and genre tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mbid | No | ||
| album | Yes | ||
| artist | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| album | No | Album information object |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the external data source (Last.fm) and the exact data returned. No contradictions with 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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that covers all essential aspects: action, source, input, output. No superfluous words.
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 annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and an output schema (not shown but present), the description provides sufficient context for a simple lookup tool. It does not mention pagination or limitations, but for album metadata this is acceptable.
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 description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that the mbid parameter is an alternative to the artist+album pair, and provides examples in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though individual parameter details could be richer.
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 specifies the action (fetching album metadata), the source (Last.fm), the required identifiers (artist and album name or MusicBrainz ID), and the returned data (track listing, counts, wiki, tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like artist_info and track_info which target different entities.
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 when to use the tool (when album metadata is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it. However, the context from sibling tool names provides differentiation, and the description is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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 overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Additionally, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as discovery/onboarding tools, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are closely related. While descriptions are detailed, the boundaries between these tools are unclear, causing potential misselection.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with no camelCase or mixed styles. The naming follows a mostly consistent verb_noun or data_subject pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, artist_info, recent_alerts). Minor deviations exist, such as recent_alerts and user_top_tracks not beginning with a verb, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
40 tools is far too many for a server nominally about Last.fm; only 9 tools actually relate to its stated purpose. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, etc.), making the set bloated and unfocused. Many tools are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx, _beta, _grounded; four different polymarket_* analysis tools), inflating the count without adding distinct value.
Even within the Last.fm domain, the tool surface is incomplete: there is no artist search, album search, user profile info, recent scrobbles, loved tracks, or music recommendations. The unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, while individually comprehensive for their own domains, do not compensate for the lack of core Last.fm functionality given the server's stated purpose. The overall set is a fragmented mixture that leaves significant gaps for what the server name promises.