get_artistFetch a metal artist's profile by ID from Encyclopaedia Metallum, including real name, birth/death facts, origin, and optional bio and trivia.
Artist profile (real name, born/died, cause of death, origin) plus, by default, the full biography and trivia (two extra requests).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist_id | Yes | Metal Archives artist id (from a lineup) | |
| include_bio | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds cost/latency context: the bio and trivia are 'two extra requests' issued by default. It also discloses the field set for a tool with no output schema. It stops short of describing the response shape in detail or rate-limiting 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list and the cost caveat both earn their place. Slightly dense parenthesis usage, but nothing wasteful.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so by naming the profile fields plus the extra bio/trivia payload. What is missing is what happens when include_bio is false (bare profile only) and any pagination or error behavior.
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 only 50%: artist_id is documented as a Metal Archives id from a lineup, while include_bio is bare. The description compensates by explaining that bio/trivia are fetched by default and cost two extra requests, which is exactly the semantics the agent needs to decide on that flag.
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 specific verb+resource (artist profile) and enumerates the returned fields (real name, born/died, cause of death, origin), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_band and get_band_bio. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires inference, holding it below a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of the alternative tools (get_band, get_band_bio) an agent might pick instead. The 'by default' clause implies the bio fetches automatically but does not tell the agent when to turn it off.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.