get_upcoming_releasesRetrieve upcoming metal album releases from Encyclopaedia Metallum, ordered soonest first, to track future releases. Set a limit to control how many results return.
Upcoming releases, soonest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data profile is covered elsewhere. The description's one addition is the deterministic 'soonest first' ordering, which is genuinely useful, but it omits everything about result shape, pagination beyond the limit param, and data freshness.
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 five-word fragment with zero waste and the ordering constraint front-loaded. It is underspecified rather than bloated, but as pure structure it is efficient and readable.
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 should at least sketch what a 'release' contains and whose releases are returned; neither is present. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.
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?
There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Max results to return', default 50, max 200), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the limit and doesn't need to; 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?
Identifies the resource ('upcoming releases') and the sort order, but the verb is elided and the scope is ambiguous — it never says whose upcoming releases (global feed vs. a specific band/artist). It is distinguishable from the browse_*/search_* siblings but not clearly from get_discography, which also returns a set of releases.
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 indication of when to use this rather than get_discography, get_album, or search_albums, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The only implied usage is the sort order, which the agent could infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.