Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Otohiroi MCP

Otohiroi MCP

by koyomivanp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

find_elsewhere

Find links and what to check for sound effects, music, or ambience in libraries you must browse manually, so you can review and choose audio yourself.

Instructions

Search links, with what to check, for libraries a person must browse themselves (Niconi Commons, YouTube Audio Library and others).

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": "find_elsewhere"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are links plus 'what to check' and that the target libraries require manual browsing, but says nothing about search scope, authentication, result format, or pagination.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The definition is a single sentence with no repetition, but the clause 'with what to check' is awkward and the sentence is not cleanly front-loaded around the action and target.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description omits parameter meaning and sufficient return or usage context. It names external examples but does not give an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It never clarifies whether 'query' is a sound description or a library name, and it does not mention the 'kind' filter or its sfx/music/ambience enum values.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description uses the verb 'Search' and the object 'links ... for libraries a person must browse themselves', so the broad purpose is discernible. However, the phrase 'with what to check' is ambiguous and the description does not clearly differentiate this from internal search siblings such as search_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?

It implies use when material must be browsed externally rather than through in-pack search, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not name an alternative. An agent must infer the usage context from 'libraries a person must browse themselves'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools