Modify a track's metadata using station and track IDs; change title, artist, album, genre, type, or release date.
Update metadata for a track
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Track type | |
| album | No | Album name | |
| genre | No | Genre | |
| title | No | Track title | |
| artist | No | Artist name | |
| track_id | Yes | The track ID | |
| station_id | Yes | The station ID | |
| release_day | No | Release day | |
| release_year | No | Release year | |
| release_month | No | Release month |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Update' but fails to state whether changes are permanent, require specific permissions, or how partial updates are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without being verbose.
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 (10 parameters, mutation operation) and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain what metadata can be updated, any side effects, and how to use the required IDs, but it covers none of these.
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%, so the input schema already documents all 10 parameters, including required station_id and track_id. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable when the schema is rich, but it doesn't highlight optional fields or constraints.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Update metadata for a track'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like update_playlist or update_station, and it doesn't specify which metadata fields are updatable.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a valid station_id and track_id, nor does it reference related sibling tools like delete_track or search_tracks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.