Get Song Details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipId | Yes | This is a little confusing because this isn't songId like you'd think. It is the clipId. I guess because you can clip different portions of a song 🤷♂️ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, describe the return format, mention required permissions, or note any rate limits or side effects. The phrase 'Get Song Details' simply restates the name without revealing observable 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?
Three words is under-specification, not conciseness. The description adds no information beyond the tool name and fails to earn its place; an appropriate description would at least define the resource scope or the output expectation.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what 'song details' will be returned. While the single parameter is well documented, the overall context of what the agent can expect from this tool is missing, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.
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 single parameter clipId has 100% schema description coverage, including a clarifying note that it is a clip ID rather than a song ID. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but with the schema already providing detailed meaning, the baseline of 3 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 'Get Song Details' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name 'get_song_details', making it a tautology. It adds no specifics about what 'song details' includes, nor does it clarify that the required input is a clipId rather than a songId. It also fails to distinguish itself from related sibling tools like scrapecreators_get_popular_songs or scrapecreators_reels_using_song.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative scrapecreators_* tools. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer 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.