search_songsFind songs by title, band, release, or lyrics text, and get lyrics IDs for retrieving full lyrics. Use it to locate tracks and connect them to lyric lookups.
Search songs by title, band, release or lyrics text. Hits include lyrics_id for get_lyrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| band | No | ||
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| title | No | ||
| lyrics | No | Words that appear in the lyrics | |
| release_title | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already cover the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds one useful behavioral detail (results carry a lyrics_id chaining to get_lyrics) but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or matching semantics, which the annotations do not cover.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the chaining hint second. Nothing redundant or padded.
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, and the description gives the one return detail an agent needs to chain onward (lyrics_id). It omits limit defaults and pagination behavior, but for a read-only multi-field search that is a minor gap.
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 only 40% (only 'lyrics' and 'limit' are documented), so the description must compensate. It names title, band, release, and lyrics, covering four of the five inputs and mapping them to the search behavior; only matching syntax (exact vs. substring) is left unstated.
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 and resource ('Search songs') plus the searchable dimensions (title, band, release, lyrics). Distinct from siblings like search_albums/search_bands by resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast 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?
The description implies usage (search by any of these fields) and gives one handoff hint — 'Hits include lyrics_id for get_lyrics' — but never states when to prefer this over search_albums or how to combine filters. Context is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.