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 behavioral traits like returning specific statistics (play count, listening time, etc.) and being based on personal history, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or data freshness that would be important for a stats 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bulleted list of return information and example queries. Every sentence earns its place by enhancing understanding without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what statistics are returned and provides usage examples, but lacks details on output format or error handling that could enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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% for the single parameter 'track_id,' which is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints further. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed listening statistics for a specific track from your listening history,' specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like get_artist_stats or get_top_tracks by focusing on individual track-level statistics rather than artist rankings or aggregated lists.

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: for querying detailed statistics about a specific track from personal listening history. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as using get_track_rank for rankings instead of stats.

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