track_infoFetch Last.fm track metadata by artist and track name (or MusicBrainz ID): duration, listener/play counts, genre tags, and wiki summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mbid | No | ||
| track | Yes | ||
| artist | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | No | Track information object |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds detail about data source (Last.fm) and returned fields, which is helpful. No contradictions or missing critical 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 that is front-loaded with purpose and comprehensively lists key outputs. No extraneous 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 tool's simplicity, description covers purpose, parameters, and return types. Output schema provides structure for return values, but description already lists all relevant fields. Complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'artist and track name (or MusicBrainz ID)' but does not explain the mbid parameter format, optionality, or how it relates to artist/track. The schema shows mbid as optional but description implies it's an alternative; more clarity needed.
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 clearly states verb 'Fetch', resource 'Last.fm track metadata', and key outputs (duration, counts, tags, summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'track_search' and 'album_info' by specifying exact lookup by artist/track name or MusicBrainz ID.
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?
Description explains when to use (when you have artist and track name or MBID) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'track_search'. However, the specificity is strong enough for an agent to infer usage.
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.