get_trackRetrieve metadata for one hearthis.at track using its author and track permalink, including title, artist, genre, duration, counts, stream, and artwork URLs.
Metadata of one track: title, artist, genre, duration, counts, stream and artwork URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | Track permalink, e.g. "my-mix" from https://hearthis.at/djname/my-mix/ | |
| author | Yes | Profile permalink, e.g. "djname" from https://hearthis.at/djname/ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, external-data nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral value by listing the returned field set (including stream and artwork URLs) in the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown permalinks or whether private tracks require auth.
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?
A single fragment with zero filler, front-loading the resource before the field list. It is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, which slightly weakens the leading verb signal, but every word earns its place.
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 only two fully documented required parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the field enumeration in the description covers the main gap an agent would face. It stops short of covering error/empty cases or relationship to sibling retrieval tools, which is the remaining gap.
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%, and the schema already explains the permalink format for both 'author' and 'track' with URL examples. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Names the specific resource (one track) and enumerates the returned fields: title, artist, genre, duration, counts, stream and artwork URLs. It is clear what the tool fetches, but it does not contrast itself with the adjacent get_track_part or get_set, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisite/auth context, and no mention of the closely related get_track_part alternative. An agent must infer the usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.