Search licensable tracks by mood, genre, energy, BPM, key, or title, with filters for social, TV, or film use.
Use this when the user wants to find licensable music by mood, genre, energy, key, or title words.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mood | No | ||
| genre | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| bpm_max | No | ||
| bpm_min | No | ||
| use_case | No | ||
| energy_max | No | ||
| energy_min | No | ||
| camelot_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, result ordering, result shape, or whether an empty result is possible — leaving core behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence naming the trigger and the facets with zero padding. Its brevity is appropriate in form even if the content is thin.
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?
An 11-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage is under-served by one sentence. An agent gets no guidance on range filters, paging, use_case semantics, or what results look like.
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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely names mood, genre, energy, key, and title words, but omits bpm_min/max, use_case, limit, and offset entirely, leaving roughly half the parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 ('find') and resource ('licensable music') plus the facets searched. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like get_track (retrieval by id) by framing this as a discovery tool, though it never names an alternative 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?
The 'Use this when the user wants to...' framing gives clear triggering context tied to user intent and searchable facets. It lacks any when-not guidance or routing to sibling tools such as get_track once a specific track is identified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.