Rekordbox Smart MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

library_search

Search your Rekordbox music library with filters for genre, BPM, key, artist, album, year, rating, and comments. Returns matching tracks with sorting and pagination.

Instructions

Search the music library with optional filters for genre, BPM, key, artist, album, year, rating, comments, hasComments, hasGenre. Returns matching tracks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "library_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	No	Full-text search query
`offset`	No
`filters`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Returns matching tracks.' It fails to mention that filters presumably combine with AND, how pagination/sort work, or the meaning of the 'missing' filter. It also uses 'comments' ambiguously while the schema has 'hasComments'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the purpose before enumerating filter options. It is concise and free of fluff, though the filter list is long.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complex input schema (nested filters, sort, pagination) and lack of an output schema, the one-sentence description leaves too much unexplained—no guidance on combining filters, using pagination, or interpreting results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description needs to compensate. It lists several filter names but doesn't explain their types or ranges (min/max), omits the sort, limit, and offset parameters, and mentions 'comments' rather than the actual 'hasComments' boolean.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the music library'), and distinguishes the tool by listing the available filter dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling search tools like library_fuzzySearch, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when a filtered search of the library is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tools. The context is clear but not differentiated from siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.