search_albumSearch TheAudioDB for albums by artist (optionally narrowed to a specific album title). Returns album id, title, artist, release year, genre, album cover artwork URL, and English description. Omit the album arg to list all albums for the artist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| album | No | Optional album title to narrow the search, e.g. "Parachutes". | |
| artist | Yes | Artist or band name, e.g. "Coldplay". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return fields (id, title, artist, etc.) and source (TheAudioDB), adding context beyond annotations which already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core action, no wasted words. Concise yet informative.
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?
For a simple tool with 2 params, no output schema, and robust annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and return values completely.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining optional narrowing and omission behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3, but description provides extra context.
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 for albums by artist with optional album title narrowing, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_artist and get_album_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?
Provides guidance on omitting the album arg to list all albums. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives for related tasks like finding tracks.
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.
Multiple tool families blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by admission), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,721 tools, and the six polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) heavily overlap on prediction-market analysis. The descriptions are verbose but an agent would struggle to reliably pick the right one without reading thousands of words.
All names are snake_case, but conventions vary: verb_noun (get_artist, search_album, list_subscriptions), noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, recent_alerts), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe), and vendor prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). More importantly, the server is named Theaudiodb yet almost none of the tool names reflect music, making the naming misleading about the server's actual scope.
35 tools is over the threshold for a well-scoped server, and the sprawl is severe: 4 music tools, roughly 20 data-research tools, 6 prediction-market tools, memory utilities, subscription management, npm scanning, and AI-visibility checks. This is not one coherent server but several servers' tool sets bolted together, with no unifying purpose that justifies the count.
For a server named Theaudiodb, coverage is thin: search_artist, search_album, get_artist, and get_album_tracks exist, but there is no search_track, no get_album metadata by ID (only its tracks), no trending/browse-by-genre, and get_artist requires an ID only obtainable by searching first. Meanwhile the 31 non-music tools suggest the real domain is actually Pipeworx data research, making the overall surface feel like an incoherent mix where neither domain is fully covered.