Your Spotify MCP Server

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it returns ranked artists by play count with specific data fields (artist name, Spotify ID, play count, listening time). However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get').

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of return data and relevant example queries. Every sentence earns its place, though the example queries could be slightly more concise.

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 provides basic completeness for a read operation: it states what it does, what it returns, and includes examples. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or data freshness that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially with no structured output schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (start_date, end_date, limit) with formats, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get your top artists for a specified time period.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('top artists'), and scope ('for a specified time period'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_tracks' or 'get_artist_stats', which would be needed for 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.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage through example queries (e.g., 'Who are my top 10 artists this year?'), suggesting when to use this tool for time-based artist rankings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_artist_stats' or 'search_listening_history', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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