track_searchSearch Last.fm for tracks matching a keyword query; returns ranked results with artist, track name, and listener counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | No | Search results container |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are ranked and include artist, track name, and listener counts, which goes beyond the structured annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limits.
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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose, source, action, and result format. No extraneous information; every word 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, rich annotations), the description covers the main purpose and result structure. However, it omits explanation of the 'limit' parameter, which is a notable gap for a complete understanding. The output schema covers return values, so return format is sufficiently documented.
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 should explain both parameters. It only implicitly explains 'query' as a 'keyword query' but says nothing about 'limit' (e.g., max results, default value). The description focuses on output rather than input, leaving one parameter undocumented.
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 searches Last.fm for tracks by keyword query and returns ranked results with specific fields (artist, track name, listener counts). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like track_info (which likely returns detail for a specific track) and artist_top_tracks (which is artist-specific).
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 when a keyword-based track search is needed, contrasting with more specific lookup tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of sibling tools and the clear purpose provide adequate guidance.
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.