artist_infoFetch Last.fm artist profile by name (or MusicBrainz ID): biography, listener/play counts, similar artists, and genre tags; optionally in a specified language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| mbid | No | ||
| artist | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist | No | Artist information object |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description consistently describes a fetch operation. It adds valuable context about the returned data fields and language option, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that concisely covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs without redundancy or fluff. Every phrase adds value.
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?
An output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so the description does not need to detail return formats. It mentions the main data fields (biography, counts, similar artists, tags) which matches typical expectations. Minor omissions like error conditions or rate limits are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.
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 'artist' can be a name or MBID and that 'lang' is optional. However, it does not explain the relationship between 'artist' and 'mbid' parameters (e.g., whether they are mutually exclusive or which takes precedence), leaving some ambiguity.
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 fetches a Last.fm artist profile with specific data fields (biography, listener/play counts, similar artists, genre tags) and mentions alternative identifiers (name or MusicBrainz ID). It distinguishes the tool's comprehensive profile from siblings like artist_similar but does not explicitly contrast with them, so it's clear but not perfectly differentiated.
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 usage for fetching full artist profiles with optional language but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. There is no statement about prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer 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.
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.