Fetch a Discogs artist profile by ID. Returns real name, bio, links, aliases, name variations, and group memberships.
Get a Discogs artist profile. Returns a Discogs artist profile: real name, bio, links, name variations, aliases, and group memberships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Discogs artist id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the returned content (real name, bio, links, variations, aliases, group memberships), which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or lookup failure behavior, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Slight redundancy: 'Get a Discogs artist profile' and 'Returns a Discogs artist profile' repeat the same noun phrase, which could be tightened by merging them.
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 fetch-by-id tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return shape, which is exactly what the agent cannot get elsewhere. Missing only ancillary context like auth or error behavior, which is minor here.
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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or disambiguation detail for the artist id (e.g. numeric Discogs id vs. name), so it does not exceed the schema's baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Discogs artist profile') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from discogs_artist_releases, discogs_release, or discogs_search, but the resource and verb are unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the obvious sibling discogs_artist_releases (which also takes an artist id) or discogs_search. The 'get profile by id' intent is implied but no conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.