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. While it states what the tool does ('shows tracks and artists'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid date ranges. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and appropriately sized. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, the second adds crucial clarification about 'first time' listening, and the example queries provide helpful context without being redundant. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and its behavioral characteristics. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't address the output format, error conditions, or other contextual information that would help an agent use this tool effectively. The example queries help but don't fully compensate for these gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly with formats, defaults, and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('discover new music', 'shows tracks and artists') and resources ('you listened to for the first time during the period'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on first-time discoveries within a time period, unlike tools like 'get_top_artists' or 'search_listening_history' which have broader scopes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('in a specific time period', 'you listened to for the first time during the period') and includes example queries that illustrate appropriate use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different scenarios.

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