Find reference tracks with similar low-end character, genre, or descriptive terms to guide bass mix analysis and adjustment.
Records to aim at. like: nearest neighbours of a named track. character: words such as "heavy sub, tight punch, pumping".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| like | No | ||
| genre | No | ||
| character | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires prerequisites, mutates state, or has any side effects. No limitations or requirements are disclosed.
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 description is short but cryptic. It lacks front-loading of the main purpose, uses unclear phrasing, and fails to structure the information logically. Conciseness without clarity is not effective.
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?
The description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with an output schema. It does not mention return format, usage scenarios, or how it integrates with the other reference tools. An agent would struggle to call it correctly.
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?
The description explains 'like' as 'nearest neighbours of a named track' and 'character' with examples, but leaves 'n' (likely the number of results) and 'genre' completely unexplained. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but only partially covers two of four parameters.
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 'Records to aim at' is vague and lacks a clear verb or resource. It hints at finding similar records via 'like: nearest neighbours of a named track' but does not explicitly state it is a search/find tool. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like find_kicks or find_bass_patches.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, conditions, or context for selecting this over sibling tools like project_reference or find_kicks are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.