Fetch Mixcloud shows by tag, city, or both, letting you filter music by genre and location.
Get a tag/genre ('funk'), a city ('athens'), or both ('funk' + 'athens').
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_tag"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| city | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that this is a fetch. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, return format, or what happens when tag/city are omitted. The 'get' verb weakly implies a read, but no real behavioral context is added.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and explains the input combinations via inline examples. No filler, though the example-heavy phrasing slightly obscures the return behavior.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth — yet it explains inputs only and says nothing about what the call returns or how to interpret results. For a 2-parameter lookup tool this leaves meaningful gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes only parameter names. The description does compensate somewhat by demonstrating that either tag, city, or both may be supplied, with concrete examples ('funk', 'athens'). It still omits semantics like whether omitting both is valid or what string forms are accepted, so it only partially fills the gap.
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?
States a verb (get) and a resource (tag/genre, city) and clarifies the input combinations with examples. However, it never says what is actually returned — a tag entity, a list of shows, metadata — leaving the purpose vague relative to siblings like genre_shows or get_show.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings such as genre_shows, browse, and search that plausibly overlap. The agent must infer when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.