Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netease-music-mcp

netease-music-mcp

by xinyu68
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

netease_search

Read-only

Search songs in liked music and the public catalog by song title and optional artist, then return candidate matches and source status.

Instructions

同时查找喜欢列表和公开曲库，返回 candidates 与各来源状态；query 只传歌名，已知歌手另传 artist，source=liked 只查收藏。缺失歌手不代表已匹配，不会自动播放

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "netease_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
artistNo
sourceNoauto
refreshNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns candidates with per-source status, does not auto-play, and missing artist data should not be treated as a successful match.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with clauses separated by semicolons, front-loading the dual-source search behavior and then the key parameter and safety caveats. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description should do more. It adequately conveys the high-level return shape (candidates plus source status) and key semantics, but leaves limit and refresh unexplained and remains vague about result structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains query as song name, artist as the separate known-artist input, and source=liked as favorites-only, but it does not explain limit or refresh, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it searches both the liked list and the public catalog, returning candidates plus per-source status. This clearly distinguishes the tool from playback siblings such as netease_play_liked or netease_play.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives useful usage context for query, artist, and the source=liked option, and clarifies that missing artist does not imply a match. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this search tool versus alternatives like netease_song_detail or netease_liked_songs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools