Search TikTok sounds via the mobile API by keyword. Returns full sound objects with cursor, has_more, and total for pagination.
Search TikTok sounds on the mobile API. Keyword search over sounds, returning music_info_list of full sound objects unmodified with cursor, has_more and total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Sounds per page (max 50) | |
| offset | No | Result offset | |
| keyword | Yes | Search keyword |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return contract (a `music_info_list` of unmodified sound objects plus `cursor`, `has_more`, `total`), which is useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination semantics beyond the field names.
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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the return-shape detail. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence is dense enough that it could be split for readability.
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 usefully covers the response shape and pagination fields, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The main gap is the lack of guidance on how this search relates to the numerous sibling music endpoints.
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% (keyword, count with max 50, offset are all documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is 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 ('Search TikTok sounds') and pins the surface to the mobile API, which separates it from the many desktop/creative-center siblings. The phrase 'Keyword search over sounds' further distinguishes it from trending, related, and posts music tools, though it doesn't name any 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?
Usage is implied by 'Keyword search' — an agent can infer this is the query-driven music lookup — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against alternatives like tiktok_mobile_music_trending, tiktok_mobile_music_related, or tiktok_mobile_search. With such a dense music-tool cluster, that absence leaves real routing ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.