Your Spotify MCP Server

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 does well by specifying what the tool returns (comprehensive statistics including listening time, top tracks/artists/albums, patterns, discoveries) and clarifying it works for 'any date range.' However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness considerations that would be helpful for a Spotify API tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, differentiation, use cases, returns, examples) and front-loaded with the core functionality. While comprehensive, some sentences in the 'Perfect for' section could be more concise, and the example queries section is slightly repetitive with the use cases above.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns (comprehensive statistics with specific examples). However, for a tool that presumably accesses user listening data, it could better address privacy/authentication context and provide more detail about the format of returned statistics beyond just listing categories.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the broader context ('ANY time period' vs official Wrapped's year limitation) and providing example date ranges in the queries, but doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides about date format requirements.

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 'generates a custom Spotify Wrapped summary for ANY time period' with specific differentiation from Spotify's official Wrapped. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like analyze_listening_patterns or get_top_tracks by emphasizing comprehensive summary creation rather than specific analyses.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Perfect for: Seasonal summaries, Event-based recaps, Comparative analysis, Monthly or weekly reviews.' It also includes example queries that demonstrate appropriate use cases, giving clear context for when this tool is the right choice among siblings.

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