Fetch complete details for a specific Discogs release, including tracklist, credits, labels, formats, barcodes, and community stats. Use the release ID to inspect a pressing.
Full detail for one release (a specific pressing): tracklist, credits, labels and catalog numbers, formats, identifiers (barcodes, matrix/runout etchings), notes, community have/want and rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| release_id | Yes | ||
| include_images | No |
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned data (tracklist, credits, identifiers, community stats), but says nothing about error behavior or what include_images changes.
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 that leads with the core purpose, then enumerates contents. Dense and waste-free, though the long parenthetical list makes it slightly list-heavy.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates well on the return side. But for a 2-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the missing parameter documentation (especially include_images) leaves the definition incomplete.
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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions release_id or the include_images option. Only the vague notion of 'one release' hints at an identifier; the images flag is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('Full detail for one release') and adds the key disambiguation that it is 'a specific pressing', which implicitly separates it from get_master. However, it does not name the sibling it contrasts with, so the differentiation is left partly to inference.
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 phrase 'a specific pressing' hints at when this applies versus get_master, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (get_master, get_master_versions) in the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.