get_other_versionsRetrieve all other versions of a Metal Archives release, including reissues, remasters, and regional or format editions, using its album ID.
Other versions of a release: reissues, remasters, regional and format editions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| album_id | Yes | Metal Archives release id (from search_albums or get_discography) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and scope profile is already covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether results are paginated, whether an empty list is possible for releases without variants, or what each entry contains — it only lists content categories, which is closer to purpose than 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?
It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: there is no front-loaded verb and no supporting structure, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at what is returned; the category list partially does this. But for a single-param lookup tool with no usage guidance and no return-shape detail, it is only minimally complete.
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?
Only one parameter (album_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself pointing to search_albums/get_discography as sources of the id. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the resource ('other versions of a release') and enumerates what those versions are (reissues, remasters, regional and format editions), which helps an agent distinguish it from get_album. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so the action (retrieve/list) must be inferred, and it never mentions that it returns versions for a specific album.
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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The sibling set includes get_album and get_discography, and an agent would benefit from knowing to call this only after identifying a base release, but the description says nothing about that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.