rekordbox-mcp

by Galb-collab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

search_tracks_by_filename

Search your rekordbox library for tracks by filename using partial match, and retrieve a list of matching tracks.

Instructions

Search for tracks by filename.

Args: filename: Filename to search for (partial match)

Returns: List of tracks matching the filename

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "search_tracks_by_filename"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filename`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the search is a partial match and returns a list of tracks, which is useful. However, it does not state any limitations like case sensitivity or whether the search covers full paths.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a compact docstring with a one-line summary, args, and returns. Every sentence adds information; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, the partial-match behavior, and return type. It doesn't mention usage alternatives, but that is a separate dimension; given the simplicity, the tool description is reasonably complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema for 'filename' has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It explains that the argument is the filename to search for and clarifies 'partial match', adding value beyond the schema's bare type. The description could add more details like case sensitivity, but the basic semantics are covered.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'tracks' with a scoping qualifier 'by filename', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like search_tracks. It also specifies 'partial match' which further clarifies the search behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as search_tracks or get_track_file_path. The context is implied: use when you need to find tracks by partial filename. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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