get_v1_1_seed_to_playlistGet radio playlist Group: Extras. Billing per call: 1 Credits. Agents can pay per call ($0.01 via x402/MPP, no API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | No | Artist or song URI |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Group: Extras' and billing per call, but does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies state, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a GET-style tool that likely just fetches data.
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 brief and front-loaded with the action, but includes unrelated billing and group metadata that does not contribute to understanding the tool's purpose or usage. It is not verbose, but the structure mixes operational details with the core function, making it less effective than a clean, purpose-focused sentence.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain what a radio playlist is, how the seed URI is used, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently.
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?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'uri' with the description 'Artist or song URI', providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline score of 3 without compensating for any gaps.
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 states 'Get radio playlist' which identifies the action and resource, but it does not clarify that this tool generates a playlist from a seed URI, nor does it distinguish it from sibling playlist tools like get_v1_1_playlist or get_v1_1_playlist_tracks. The name 'seed_to_playlist' implies this, but the description is too vague to be sure.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many other playlist or artist-related tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios for invoking this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.