soundcloud_profile_tracks_listList a SoundCloud profile's tracks, newest first. Accepts a handle. Returns a list (use cursor when paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response. | |
| handle | Yes | SoundCloud handle whose tracks should be listed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details (newest first, pagination via cursor), but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or response format beyond 'a list'. Given the annotations, the added context is modest but not negligible.
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 exactly two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the action, then adds ordering, required input, and pagination note. Every clause carries information; no redundant phrases.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential action and pagination hint. However, it does not describe what the returned list items look like (e.g., track metadata) or any failure cases. Given the presence of sibling get tools, a bit more detail about output structure would improve completeness, but the basics are covered.
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?
The schema describes both parameters (handle and cursor) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new meaning. It merely restates that a handle is used and cursor is for pagination, both already present in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.
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 action (List), the resource (SoundCloud profile's tracks), and the ordering (newest first). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic list tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling SoundCloud tools like soundcloud_profile_get or soundcloud_track_get, which are unambiguous from their names.
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 provides minor usage context: it accepts a handle and notes pagination via cursor. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
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.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.