Fetches a Discogs master release by ID, returning version-agnostic details such as artists, tracklist, genres, videos, and marketplace stats.
Get a Discogs master release. Returns a Discogs master release: the version-agnostic grouping of a release across pressings/reissues (artists, tracklist, genres/styles, videos, images, marketplace stats).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Discogs master release id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the returned content (artists, tracklist, genres/styles, videos, images, marketplace stats), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing id.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the definitional detail following. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description steps in to summarize the return contents, which is the main thing an agent needs here. For a single-param getter this is nearly complete; only lookup/disambiguation guidance is missing.
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%, so the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the id beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Get a Discogs master release') and then defines the resource, explaining it is the version-agnostic grouping across pressings/reissues. This implicitly distinguishes it from discogs_release (a specific pressing), though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from context that discogs_release should be used for a specific pressing and discogs_search for finding ids; nothing in the text routes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.