search_songsSearch YouTube Music by song query to retrieve song IDs, artists, album titles, durations, and links.
Find songs with IDs, artists, album titles, durations, and links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracks | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Output schema / $defs / TrackResult / properties / albumAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Album"
+}Output schema / $defs / TrackResult / properties / duration_secondsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Duration Seconds"
+}Output schema / $defs / TrackResult / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "videoId",
- "title",
- "artists",
- "duration",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "videoId",
+ "title",
+ "artists",
+ "album",
+ "duration",
+ "duration_seconds",
+ "url"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no contradictions and hints at the output fields, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as query interpretation, result limits, or how the open-world nature affects 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though somewhat under-specified in substance.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema plus safety annotations, but the description omits parameter meaning and usage guidance. An agent would need to infer that query is a search term and that limit controls result count, which is not sufficiently explicit for confident invocation.
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 full burden for explaining query and limit, but it mentions neither parameter. It only lists output fields, leaving the required query parameter and optional limit semantically unexplained.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Find songs') and the resource ('YouTube Music songs' via the title), and lists the returned fields: IDs, artists, album titles, durations, and links. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_song_radio and resume_private_playlist, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose search_songs over the radio/playlist siblings, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name and title, not stated in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.