Fetch your followed artists from Deezer. Specify the number of artists to return with the optional 'first' parameter.
Your followed artists.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_favorite_artists"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only describes the output as 'your followed artists' but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, how the data is returned (e.g., list or single item), pagination behavior, or any side effects.
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 a single phrase with no structure. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative. Every sentence should be purposeful, but this one merely restates the tool name.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, a single parameter, and numerous sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain return format, pagination, or how it differs from similar tools like get_favorite_albums.
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 0%; the description adds no meaning to the 'first' parameter. It does not explain that this parameter limits the number of results, its default value, or its role in pagination.
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 'Your followed artists' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'get_favorite_artists'. It does not use a verb or specify the action (like 'retrieve' or 'list'), and it fails to distinguish the tool from sibling tools like get_favorite_albums or get_favorite_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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_artist, search, or other get_favorite_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, authentication, or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.