search_artistSearch TheAudioDB for a music artist/band by name. Returns metadata: genre, style, mood, year formed, country, official website, English biography, and artist thumbnail image URL. Music-metadata lookup — complements MusicBrainz with biographies and artwork.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist | Yes | Artist or band name, e.g. "Coldplay". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "artist": "Coldplay"
+ },
+ {
+ "artist": "The Beatles"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds the data source and exact return fields, but no details on rate limits or pagination.
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 concise sentences: first states action, second lists outputs and positions the tool. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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 lookup with one param and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. Lists return fields but lacks output schema or behavior details like missing artist handling.
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 100% with description for the 'artist' parameter. Description adds no new semantic info beyond 'by name'; baseline is appropriate.
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 it searches TheAudioDB by name and lists specific metadata returned. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning MusicBrainz complement.
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 context by stating it complements MusicBrainz with biographies and artwork, suggesting when to use. However, does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.
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.