rekordbox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_tracks_by_bpm_range

Filter your rekordbox library by tempo. Get a list of tracks within a specified BPM range to plan DJ sets or organize music.

Instructions

Get tracks within a specific BPM range.

Args: bpm_min: Minimum BPM bpm_max: Maximum BPM

Returns: List of tracks within the BPM range

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bpm_min": "<bpm_min>",
      "bpm_max": "<bpm_max>"
    },
    "name": "get_tracks_by_bpm_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bpm_max`	Yes
`bpm_min`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic behavior (get tracks in a BPM range) without disclosing details like whether boundaries are inclusive, whether results are sorted, or what track fields are returned. This is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and structured (Args/Returns), but there is redundancy: 'Get tracks within a specific BPM range' and 'Returns: List of tracks within the BPM range' repeat the same information. Still, it is short and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 simple parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete for basic usage. However, with no annotations and sparse parameter details, it leaves minor ambiguities like inclusivity and sorting, but overall is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameters. It does provide minimal meaning ('Minimum BPM', 'Maximum BPM'), but lacks additional details such as inclusivity, validation, or units. This is adequate but not enriched.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving tracks filtered by a BPM range. The verb+resource+scope ('Get tracks within a specific BPM range') is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tracks_by_key or search_tracks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need tracks by BPM range) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear enough, but it lacks explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.