Find background music by free-text query across seed, Jamendo, Freesound, and user libraries, with optional BPM, duration, and instrumental filters.
Free-text search over seed + optional Jamendo / Freesound / user library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| bpm_max | No | ||
| bpm_min | No | ||
| catalog | No | auto | |
| duration_max | No | ||
| duration_min | No | ||
| instrumental | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope and does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or that it is a read-only operation. No side effects or limitations are disclosed, which is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.
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 sentence, which is superficially concise but under-specifies the tool. It omits essential information about filters and output, making it an incomplete specification rather than a well-structured concise description.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not shown, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to set filters, what results look like, or any constraints on usage. The tool's complexity demands a far richer description.
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%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for any parameter. The description fails to explain the meaning or effect of limit, bpm_min, bpm_max, duration_min, duration_max, instrumental, or catalog. It only alludes to source catalogs indirectly without mapping them to the catalog parameter.
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 action ('Free-text search') and resource ('seed + optional Jamendo / Freesound / user library'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track (fetch specific track) and recommend_bgm (AI-driven recommendation). It doesn't fully define 'seed' but the intent is unambiguous.
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 alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for free-text queries, nor does it exclude cases better handled by recommend_bgm or get_track. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.