Fetch metadata for multiple NetEase song IDs in one request, preserving input order. Use summary or full detail for batched song lookups.
Fetch metadata for multiple songs in one call while preserving input order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| song_ids | Yes | NetEase song IDs. | |
| detail_level | No | Summary or scalar-rich song metadata. | summary |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| songs | Yes | ||
| missing_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the order-preserving behavior and implies a read-only operation, but it omits details like how invalid IDs are handled, whether partial results are returned, or any rate-limit considerations. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Fetch metadata') and immediately adds the key batch/order traits. No redundant words or information; every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present, no nested objects), the description covers the essential behavior. It doesn't explain error responses or edge cases, but the combination of schema, output schema, and brief description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, providing baseline semantics for both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that input order is preserved, which is directly relevant to the song_ids parameter. This extra detail enhances understanding of the main parameter.
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 clearly states the tool fetches metadata for multiple songs in one call, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by highlighting batch retrieval and order preservation, which other song-related tools (e.g., get_new_songs, get_similar_songs) do not.
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 (use when you need metadata for multiple songs) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'for a single song, use get_album' or 'for searching, use music_search', so the agent receives only implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.