Skip to main content
Glama

Find similar sounds

find_similar_sounds
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find acoustically similar Freesound sounds by sound ID, with options for result count, pagination, and similarity space.

Instructions

Find sounds that are acoustically similar to a given Freesound sound.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sound_id": "<sound_id>"
    },
    "name": "find_similar_sounds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResult page (1-based).
sound_idYesFreesound sound ID.
max_resultsNoNumber of results to return (1-30, default 10).
similarity_spaceNoOptional similarity space (default chosen by Freesound).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: no mention of how similarity is computed, which similarity space is defaulted, result ordering, or rate-limit behavior on the open-world Freesound backend.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its terseness is the same trait that leaves semantic gaps elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to describe the return shape (list of sounds with similarity scores?) and it does not. For a discovery tool that returns ranked results with paging, the definition is too thin for an agent to know what comes back or when to choose it over search_sounds.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the laion_clap/freesound_classic enum are already documented in the schema. The description mentions none of them; the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find sounds that are acoustically similar to a given Freesound sound'), which is clearly distinct from the text/metadata-based sibling search_sounds. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance beyond the bare purpose: it never says to prefer this over search_sounds when starting from a seed sound, nor does it mention prerequisites (the sound must exist) or limits on result count/page. The agent must infer everything about invocation context.

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