Retrieve full release details by Discogs ID, including artists, labels, formats, tracklist, credits, identifiers, videos, images, and community want/have/rating.
Get a Discogs release. Returns a Discogs release: artists, labels, formats, tracklist, credits, identifiers, videos, images, and community want/have/rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Discogs 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 discloses the return payload fields (artists, labels, formats, tracklist, etc.), which is useful, but says nothing about required permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the release id is public. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not confirmed.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a compact return-value summary. Every sentence earns its place, though the return list is somewhat long and could be trimmed if an output schema were present.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return contents. The main gap is that it does not help the agent disambiguate a release id from a master id or related Discogs endpoints, but the core calling context is present.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a 'Discogs release id'. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond that baseline, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool with complete schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('Discogs release') and lists the returned data categories, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it does not distinguish this release-level tool from siblings like discogs_master or discogs_artist_releases, leaving some ambiguity about when to pick it.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative Discogs tools. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right endpoint versus discogs_master, discogs_artist_releases, or discogs_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.