Query the Discogs database by artist, label, release, or master with filters for genre, year, format, and more.
Issue a search query to the Discogs database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| release_title | No | ||
| credit | No | ||
| artist | No | ||
| anv | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| genre | No | ||
| style | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| catno | No | ||
| barcode | No | ||
| track | No | ||
| submitter | No | ||
| contributor | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| sort_order | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals almost nothing about tool behavior—no mention of pagination, sorting, exact matching, rate limits, or response structure. With no annotations, the description entirely fails to disclose important behavioral traits.
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?
The single sentence is concise but overly minimal. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential context, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (22 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely inadequate. It does not cover return values, required parameters, or usage patterns, leaving the agent with little useful context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 22 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names listed in the schema. It fails to explain what any parameter does, missing a critical chance to guide agent usage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool issues a search query to the Discogs database, indicating a broad search capability. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that provide direct entity lookups, missing an opportunity to clarify that this is for querying across multiple entity types.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many specific get_* sibling tools. The agent receives no context about alternatives or prerequisites, making it less effective in choosing the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cswkim/discogs-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server