mcp-freesound

Search sounds

search_sounds

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Freesound for sound effects, ambiences, and music loops by text, filters, and sorting; returns metadata, licenses, and preview URLs for each result.

Instructions

Search Freesound for audio files (sound effects, ambiences, music loops...) by text. Supports Freesound filter syntax (e.g. 'duration:[0 TO 30] license:"Creative Commons 0"' or 'tag:rain type:wav') and sorting. Returns metadata, license and preview URLs.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_sounds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Result page (1-based).
`sort`	No	Result ordering.	score
`query`	Yes	Search terms, e.g. 'thunderstorm', 'piano loop'.
`filter`	No	Optional Freesound/Solr filter, e.g. 'duration:[1 TO 10] tag:dog'.
`max_results`	No	Number of results to return (1-30, default 10).

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, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the return payload (metadata, license, preview URLs) and the supported filter/sort capabilities.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by capability and return details; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return shape, and it covers filtering and sorting; only the absence of guidance on result limits/pagination behavior relative to siblings keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3; the description reinforces the filter syntax with concrete examples but adds little beyond what the schema's own examples already convey.

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 and resource ('Search Freesound for audio files') plus the content types covered, and the text-search framing clearly separates it from siblings like get_sound and find_similar_sounds.

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 the use case (text search with optional filters and sorting) but never states when to prefer this over find_similar_sounds or get_user_sounds, nor any exclusions or prerequisites such as API key needs.

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

Deploy Server