Spotify MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Spotify resources and actions, with clear boundaries between playback control, queue management, and content retrieval. However, some overlap exists between 'skip_tracks' and 'next_track'/'previous_track', and 'start_playback' vs 'start_playback_track'/'start_playlist_playback' could cause confusion about which to use for resuming vs starting specific content.
Naming Consistency4/5
The server maintains strong consistency with snake_case naming throughout and mostly follows verb_noun patterns (e.g., 'get_current_track', 'add_to_queue', 'search_spotify'). Minor deviations include 'get_item_info' (noun_verb) and some tools using 'playback' while others use 'track'/'playlist' in similar contexts, but the overall pattern remains clear and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With 21 tools, this feels borderline heavy for a music streaming interface. While Spotify's API is feature-rich, the tool set includes some redundancy (e.g., multiple skip/playback variants) that could potentially be consolidated. The count is manageable but approaches the upper limit of what feels well-scoped for this domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage of Spotify's core functionality including playback control (play/pause/skip/seek/repeat), queue management, content retrieval (tracks/artists/playlists/recommendations), search capabilities, and user data access. There are no obvious gaps for typical agent workflows, with CRUD-like operations well-represented across the music streaming domain.
Average 3/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'get user playlists' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this requires user authentication, returns all playlists or paginated results, includes public/private status, or handles errors—critical for a read operation in a music API context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but not optimally structured: 'FastMCP tool' is unnecessary filler, and it lacks front-loaded key details (e.g., scope or constraints). However, it avoids excessive verbosity, keeping to a single sentence that conveys the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex playlist data. It doesn't explain what 'user playlists' entails (e.g., owned vs. followed, metadata included), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but this is acceptable given the schema completeness, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'get user playlists using SpotifyClient', which provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('user playlists'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_playback_state' or 'get_queue', and the phrase 'FastMCP tool' is redundant noise that doesn't clarify purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'search_spotify' or 'get_top_artists' for playlist-related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires playback to be active, if it's destructive to the current playback state, potential rate limits, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, and it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a playback control tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, error conditions, and interaction with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'position_ms' is the 'Position in milliseconds', which clarifies the unit and purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could specify valid ranges or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Seek to position') and resource ('in current track'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_playback' or 'skip_tracks' that also affect playback position, leaving the scope somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires active playback), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'skip_tracks' or 'start_playback' for positioning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Add tracks') but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, how duplicates are handled, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' section is efficiently structured. However, the second sentence ('Args:...') could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to add crucial behavioral details without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: error handling, return values, permissions needed, rate limits, and differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.
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?
The description includes an 'Args' section that names both parameters ('playlist_id', 'track_ids') and provides basic semantic context (e.g., 'Spotify playlist ID'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining format requirements (e.g., URI vs ID), constraints (max tracks per call), or examples. The baseline is 3 since it adds some meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add tracks to') and resource ('a playlist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_to_queue' or 'reorder_queue', which also involve adding/managing tracks in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing playlist ownership or Spotify Premium), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'add_to_queue' (for immediate playback) or 'start_playlist_playback' (for playing entire playlists).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, affects playback state, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a simple parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's efficient but could be slightly more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations or output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral details like side effects, error handling, and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantics by naming the parameter ('track_id') and indicating it's a 'Spotify track ID', but doesn't explain format, validation, or examples. This provides basic context but falls short of fully documenting the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a track') and target ('to the queue'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_to_playlist' or 'reorder_queue'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'start_playback_track', which might also involve adding tracks in some contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_playback_track' or 'reorder_queue', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing active playback. It only states the basic action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get top tracks for an artist', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'top tracks' means (e.g., based on popularity, region, or time). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details. It uses only two sentences, with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly, but it remains highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a music API tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., track list format), error cases, authentication needs, and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.
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?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'artist_id' parameter as a 'Spotify artist ID', adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not explain how to obtain this ID, format constraints, or provide examples, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get top tracks for an artist' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('top tracks for an artist'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_artists' or 'search_spotify', which could provide similar or overlapping functionality, preventing a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., for recommendations or playback), or exclusions (e.g., not for searching tracks). With sibling tools like 'get_top_artists' and 'search_spotify' available, this lack of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what details are included, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter documentation could be slightly better integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes in the response, doesn't mention authentication requirements for Spotify API access, and provides minimal behavioral context. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.
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?
The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema, explaining that 'item_id' is a 'Spotify ID' and 'type' accepts specific values ('track', 'album', 'artist', 'playlist'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates somewhat, though it doesn't fully document all parameter semantics like format requirements or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a Spotify item'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_current_track' or 'get_artist_top_tracks' that also retrieve Spotify item information, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_current_track' for currently playing items or 'get_artist_top_tracks' for artist-specific data, there's no indication of when this general item info tool is preferred over more specialized ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches Spotify, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of search results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a significant gap, leaving the agent uncertain about execution risks and outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are listed concisely without unnecessary elaboration. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly or adding a brief usage example, but overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication, rate limits, result format, pagination, or error cases. While it covers the basic purpose and parameters, it doesn't provide enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios, especially without structured output details.
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?
The description adds some parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'query' is a 'Search term', 'type' is 'One of 'track', 'artist', 'album', 'playlist'', and 'limit' is 'Max number of results'. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter, compensating partially for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't provide examples, constraints (e.g., limit ranges), or default behavior details, keeping the score at a baseline level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Spotify for tracks, artists, albums, or playlists.' This specifies the verb (search) and resource (Spotify content), making it distinct from siblings like 'get_current_track' or 'get_my_playlists'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_recommendations', which might also involve searching, though the latter is more about generating suggestions rather than direct query-based search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'search_spotify' over 'get_recommendations' for finding content, or how it differs from 'get_item_info' for retrieving specific items. Without such context, the agent must infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the action but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., whether it advances playback, requires active playback, or interacts with queue), leaving critical operational context unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It avoids redundancy, though the formatting could be more polished for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context, return values, and integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for effective use.
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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'num_skips' as 'Number of tracks to skip' with a default value. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('skip') and resource ('tracks'), specifying it handles multiple tracks at once. It distinguishes from sibling 'next_track' by indicating batch skipping capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'next_track' or 'previous_track'. The description implies usage for skipping multiple tracks but offers no context on prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions starting playback but doesn't disclose whether this interrupts current playback, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but clear, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured but efficiently conveys key points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: error conditions, return values, interaction with other playback tools, and behavioral nuances like whether it queues or immediately plays the track.
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%, but the description adds value by explaining 'track_uri' as a Spotify URI with an example format and noting 'device_id' is optional. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap—missing details like URI validation, device_id format, or default behavior when device_id is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start playback') and resource ('specific track on Spotify'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_playback' or 'start_playlist_playback' by specifying it's for individual tracks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_playback' or 'start_playlist_playback'. The description only states what it does without context about prerequisites (e.g., active Spotify session), when it's appropriate, or what happens if playback is already active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Start playback' implies a write operation that changes system state, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if playback is already active. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter section could be more integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' block. Overall, it's well-structured without unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., playback starts, returns confirmation), error conditions, or how it interacts with other playback tools. The minimal parameter documentation also leaves gaps in understanding required inputs.
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?
The description lists both parameters with brief explanations, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional documentation. The parameter explanations are minimal ('Spotify playlist ID', 'Optional device to play on') and don't specify format requirements or constraints. This provides basic semantics but lacks the detail needed for confident parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Start playback') and resource ('of a specific playlist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the similar 'start_playback' and 'start_playback_track' siblings, which would require explicit differentiation to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_playback' or 'start_playback_track'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether playback must be paused first) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get current playback information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify details like whether it requires authentication, what format the information is returned in, or if there are any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for an AI agent to use it effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate here. It gets a baseline score of 4 because the schema fully documents the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get current playback information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current playback information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific information is retrieved, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_current_track' or 'get_queue', which might overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_current_track' and 'get_queue' that might retrieve similar or related playback data, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'pause playback' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if no playback is active, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that likely modifies state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly improved by front-loading more context about when to use it, but it contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after pausing (e.g., state changes, error conditions), nor does it provide context about prerequisites or behavioral constraints that would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('pause playback') and resource ('on spotify'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other playback control siblings like 'start_playback', 'next_track', or 'previous_track', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_playback' or 'get_playback_state'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires active playback) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reorders tracks, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether this affects playback state, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits), error conditions, or what happens if parameters are invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated into the flow rather than listed separately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by explaining that 'range_start' is the 'Position of track to move' and 'insert_before' is the 'Position to insert the track', which clarifies the semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify index conventions (e.g., zero-based vs. one-based) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reorder tracks in queue') and the specific operation ('by moving a track to a different position'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'skip_tracks' or 'add_to_queue', which also affect queue ordering, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a queue must exist or playback be active), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'skip_tracks' or 'add_to_queue' that might affect queue ordering in different ways.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, returns structured data, handles errors if nothing is playing, or has rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without extraneous detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a media playback tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., track name, artist, duration), error conditions, or dependencies like requiring active playback, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline high score since it doesn't add unnecessary information beyond what the schema already covers perfectly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about the currently playing track', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_playback_state' or 'get_queue' which might also provide related playback information, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_playback_state' that might include track info, there's no indication of whether this tool is more specific or when it's preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves the queue but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the queue data includes (e.g., track order, metadata) or any prerequisites like authentication. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current queue of tracks'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_track' or 'get_playback_state', which might provide overlapping queue-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_current_track' and 'get_playback_state' that might include queue data, there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Go back to previous track' implies a mutation (changing playback), but it doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, what happens if no previous track exists, or if it affects queue/playlist state. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., no previous track), side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no parameters are required, earning a baseline score above minimum viable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Go back to previous track' clearly states the action (go back) and target resource (previous track), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'next_track' or 'skip_tracks' beyond the directional implication, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'next_track' or 'skip_tracks', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring active playback. It simply states what the tool does without context for application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation (resuming playback) but doesn't disclose effects like whether it resumes from paused state or last position, potential errors if no device is active, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user playback.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool likely performs a mutation (resuming playback) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, return values, or side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter explanation in the description. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss non-existent inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('resume playback') and target resource ('currently active Spotify device'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pause_playback' or 'start_playback_track' beyond the obvious verb difference, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_playback_track' or 'start_playlist_playback', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active device or playback state. It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it 'gets' recommendations (implied read-only) but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or what happens with invalid seeds. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose sentence followed by a bullet-like list of parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 straightforward parameters.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidelines. For a recommendation tool that likely returns structured data, the absence of output details is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that seed_artists, seed_tracks, and seed_genres are 'comma-separated' IDs/genres, and clarifies that limit is the 'Number of recommendations'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by providing format and purpose for all parameters, though it doesn't specify constraints like valid genre names or limit ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Spotify recommendations based on seeds' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Spotify recommendations') with the key mechanism ('based on seeds'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_spotify (which searches) or get_top_artists (which retrieves user data). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential recommendation alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing seeds), when-not scenarios (e.g., if you want user-specific recommendations), or name specific sibling tools as alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set repeat mode') which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects on playback, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section that documents the parameter without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with one parameter) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and documents the parameter well, but omits behavioral context, error handling, and relationship to other playback tools. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly documents the 'state' parameter's allowed values ('track', 'context', or 'off'), providing essential semantics that the schema alone lacks. For a single parameter tool with poor schema coverage, this effectively compensates by fully explaining the parameter's meaning and valid options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'repeat mode for playback', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_playback_state' or 'start_playback' by focusing specifically on repeat mode configuration rather than general playback control or status retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires active playback), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to similar tools like 'start_playback' or 'get_playback_state'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or response format, which are critical for a tool accessing user data from an external service like Spotify.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details. It uses bullet points for clarity, but could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from parameter explanations to enhance readability.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers parameters well but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or return values, which are needed for full agent understanding in a Spotify API context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains 'limit' as 'Number of artists (max 50)' and 'time_range' with specific options and durations, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions and providing essential usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'user's top artists from Spotify', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_artist_top_tracks' or 'get_recommendations', which also retrieve artist-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'get_artist_top_tracks' for specific artist details or 'search_spotify' for broader queries, leaving the agent without context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, affects playback state, has side effects (e.g., updating queue), or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally complete but lacks behavioral context for a mutation operation. It states what the tool does but not how it behaves or what to expect, leaving gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
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 'Skip to next track in queue' clearly states the action (skip) and resource (next track in queue) with specific verb+resource construction. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'previous_track' (backward navigation) and 'skip_tracks' (which might skip multiple tracks).
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?
The description implies usage when wanting to advance playback, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'skip_tracks' or 'previous_track', nor any prerequisites (e.g., requires active playback). It's adequate but lacks sibling differentiation or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-spotify MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ashwanth1109/mcp-spotify/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ashwanth1109/mcp-spotify)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-spotify MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ashwanth1109/mcp-spotify/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ashwanth1109/mcp-spotify)

Latest Blog Posts

Lightport: Open-Sourcing Glama's AI Gateway
By punkpeye on April 27, 2026.
open source
OpenAI
Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ashwanth1109/mcp-spotify'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server