bandlab_list_songsList your BandLab songs to retrieve song IDs, then use those IDs to access revisions for editing.
Lists songs belonging to the authenticated user. Use the returned song id with bandlab_list_revisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many songs to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by using 'Lists' (a read operation). Beyond annotations, it adds that only songs belonging to the authenticated user are returned and that the response includes song ids, which helps the agent understand scope and return value usage without contradicting the read-only hint.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second provides a valuable workflow tip. Every word earns its place.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it lists, for whom, and how to use the result. It could mention pagination or response format more explicitly, but the lack of an output schema makes the mention of song ids sufficient for correct invocation.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, including default, min, max, and meaning. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' with the resource 'songs belonging to the authenticated user', which precisely defines the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the follow-up use with bandlab_list_revisions, making it clear this is the song-listing entry point.
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 clearly states what the tool does and provides a workflow hint ('Use the returned song id with bandlab_list_revisions'), giving context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the main use case is clear and uniquely scoped to the authenticated user's songs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.