Retrieve a list of artists from your Apple Music library with pagination controls to manage large collections.
List artists in your Apple Music library.
Args: limit: Number of artists to return, 1–100 (default 25). offset: Pagination offset (default 0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by documenting pagination constraints (limit 1–100) and offset semantics in the Args section. However, it omits sorting order, whether results include only favorited artists or all library artists, and any rate limiting considerations.
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?
Well-structured with a clear single-sentence purpose followed by an Args docstring. No redundant filler. The information density is appropriate for the tool's complexity, though the 'Args:' header is slightly formal.
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?
Adequate for a simple read tool with an output schema available, but gaps remain given zero annotations. It lacks disclosure on authentication requirements, sorting behavior, or the specific relationship between 'library artists' and catalog artists. Sufficient but not generous.
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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section adds specific constraints (1–100 range), semantic meaning ('Number of artists', 'Pagination offset'), and default values that the bare schema lacks. Both parameters are fully documented in text.
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?
Clear verb ('List') and resource ('artists in your Apple Music library') scopes the operation specifically to the user's personal library. While it implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_library_albums by specifying 'artists', it does not explicitly differentiate from search_library (search vs. enumeration) or other alternatives.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_library (for searching) or get_library_songs (for individual tracks). No prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements) or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.