get_multi_seed_radioCombine two to ten song radios into one deduplicated result by round-robin selection, reducing duplicate tracks across sources.
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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the round-robin and deduplication behavior, which are useful traits beyond the annotations. It does not contradict them, though it does not discuss edge cases like fewer than 2 or more than 10 inputs.
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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the core verb and outcome, then specifies the input range and a key behavior (deduplication). It is concise and every word adds value.
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?
An output schema is present, so return values are covered. The description explains the core operation and constraints, but the parameter format ambiguity and lack of explicit mention of read-only behavior (though covered by annotations) leave gaps. For a 2-parameter tool, it is mostly complete but not fully self-sufficient.
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 must compensate. It only implies that 'queries' are song radio seeds, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., song name, ID, URL) or what 'limit' controls beyond a default value. This leaves an agent guessing about input semantics.
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 'Round-robin' and a resource 'song radios' with a clear outcome 'deduplicated result'. It also constrains the input to 'two to ten' seeds, which distinguishes it from get_song_radio (single radio) and playlist creation tools.
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 clearly implies usage when combining multiple song seeds into a single radio, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions are left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.