mcp-freesound

Build attribution

get_attribution

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build ready-to-paste attribution and credits text for one or more Freesound sounds, including license details on attribution requirements and commercial use permissions.

Instructions

Build ready-to-paste attribution/credits text for one or more Freesound sounds, with license details (whether attribution is required and whether commercial use is allowed).

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_ids": "<sound_ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_attribution"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sound_ids`	Yes	List of Freesound sound IDs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing the payload: attribution text plus whether attribution is required and whether commercial use is allowed. It stops short of describing text formatting or error behavior for unknown IDs, which matters since there is no output schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that front-loads the action and artifact before the license qualifier. No filler, no restating of the title or name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool it covers the essentials: what is produced and what license facts come with it. Small gaps remain around the exact output shape (per-sound blocks? a combined string?) and invalid-ID handling, but nothing that blocks a correct call.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents sound_ids fully. The description adds only the loose hint 'one or more' (plurality), while the 1–50 bounds live in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Build') and a concrete artifact ('ready-to-paste attribution/credits text') scoped to Freesound sounds, plus the license metadata included. No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can route to it without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for one or more Freesound sounds' suggests you already have sound IDs in hand. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (do you need get_sound first?), and no named alternative such as get_sound if the agent only wants raw license fields.

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

Deploy Server