search_artistsSearch artists by name and retrieve country, formation year, release count, plus MusicBrainz and Wikidata IDs for joining external datasets.
Search artists by name. Returns id, name, country, formation year, release count, and the wikidata_id and musicbrainz_id identifiers for joining against external datasets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Artist name to search for | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields, which is useful, and implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not disclose behavior like partial matching, case sensitivity, pagination, or what happens with no results. The description is honest but not deeply transparent about edge-case behavior.
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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists return fields. Every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, it lacks guidance on the 'limit' parameter, result ordering, or matching behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete; an agent might not know how to interpret the limit parameter or what the default is.
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 description coverage is 50%: the 'name' parameter is described in the schema, but 'limit' has no description. The tool description adds the return-field context and the purpose of the identifiers, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's semantics or default behavior. With 50% coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves the limit parameter undocumented.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('artists'), and the search key ('by name'). It also lists the return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_tracks and search_releases. The tool name and title are reinforced, not merely restated.
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?
The description implies usage context: use this when you need to find an artist by name and get identifiers for joining external datasets. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_artist_releases or search_labels, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The mention of identifiers for joining against external datasets gives some context but not explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.