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". |
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.
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.