Search Discogs releases, masters, artists, and labels without credentials. Filter by type and paginate results.
Search the Discogs database. Searches Discogs releases, masters, artists, and labels. Credential-free official Discogs database data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| page | No | 1-based page number, default 1 | |
| type | No | Result type filter | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, default 50, max 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "release",
+ "master",
+ "artist",
+ "label"
+]v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds 'Credential-free' and 'official Discogs database data,' which signals that no auth setup is needed and the source is authoritative. It does not describe the return shape, pagination behavior, or any rate-limit considerations, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 short and front-loaded with the core search action and scope. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the entity-type enumeration and credential-free note earn their place without bloat.
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 search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the response contains or how pagination results are returned, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent about the tool's observable behavior.
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 schema already documents q, page, type, and per_page. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the entity-type list, which aligns with the type enum, but provides no extra semantic detail such as query formatting or result ordering.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Search the Discogs database') and enumerates the entity types searched: releases, masters, artists, and labels. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like discogs_release or discogs_artist, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
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 implies this tool is for broad keyword searches across Discogs data, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer the sibling detail tools (e.g., discogs_release, discogs_master) when a specific ID is already known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.