get_multi_seed_radioCombine two to ten song seeds into a single deduplicated radio playlist. Enter multiple song queries to get a merged round-robin result.
Round-robin two to ten song radios into one deduplicated result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| queries | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seeds | Yes | ||
| tracks | Yes | ||
| returned | Yes | ||
| requested | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety context is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the round-robin combination strategy, the two-to-ten cardinality constraint, and deduplication of results.
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?
One compact, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase adds useful information about the tool's 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?
For a read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: seed count range, combination method, and deduplication. It does not spell out the exact output shape, but the output schema handles that.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It implies that 'queries' must contain two to ten song seeds, but it does not explicitly define what a query represents or explain how 'limit' controls the result size. This is adequate but incomplete.
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 names a specific action ('round-robin'), the resource ('two to ten song radios'), and the outcome ('one deduplicated result'). It clearly distinguishes this multi-seed combination behavior from siblings like get_song_radio and create_private_multi_seed_radio_playlist.
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 use case is clear: combine multiple YouTube Music song radios into a single result. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_private_multi_seed_radio_playlist or get_song_radio, but the behavior and sibling names make the intended context apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.