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 full burden. It mentions the tool shows position and percentile ranking, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires authentication, if it's read-only or has side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens with invalid track IDs. For a tool with no 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by what information is returned, then relevant example queries. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 adequate basic information about the tool's purpose and return values (position and percentile). However, for a tool that queries personal listening history, it should ideally mention authentication requirements, data scope limitations, or error conditions to be more complete.

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 already documents all three parameters (track_id, start_date, end_date) with their types and formats. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score 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 with specific verbs ('find where a track ranks', 'shows the track's position') and identifies the resource ('your listening history'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_track_stats (which likely provides different metrics) and get_top_tracks (which lists tracks rather than ranking a specific one).

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 implies usage through example queries ('Where does Bohemian Rhapsody rank in my plays?'), suggesting this tool is for checking ranking of specific tracks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_track_stats or search_listening_history, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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