artist_similarSimilar artists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mbid | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| artist | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| similarartists | No | Similar artists container |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "artist": "The Rolling Stones"
+ },
+ {
+ "artist": "Led Zeppelin",
+ "limit": 5
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "similarartists": {
+ "description": "Similar artists container",
+ "properties": {
+ "artist": {
+ "description": "Array of similar artists",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "image": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "#text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "size": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "match": {
+ "description": "Match percentage",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Artist name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Artist URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations. With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already set, the description misses opportunity to explain response structure or behavior like pagination or result format.
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?
Extremely short but under-specified. Conciseness is not achieved when meaningful information is omitted. The description should earn its place; this one provides minimal 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?
Despite low complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description fails to cover basic usage context. Leaves agent without understanding of return values or parameter relationships.
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 description coverage is 0%. Description 'Similar artists.' provides no explanation of parameters (artist, mbid, limit). Does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
Description 'Similar artists.' is vague and lacks a specific verb. It restates the name without specifying what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, find). Fails to differentiate from sibling tools like artist_info or artist_top_tracks.
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 vs alternatives. Siblings include artist_info, artist_top_tracks, and chart_top_artists, but no context provided 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.