Play a random song from Spotify to discover new music or add variety to your listening experience.
Play a random song from Spotify
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "play_random_song"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | No | Optional device ID to play on |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Play') but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no device is specified. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with an external service like Spotify.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and interaction with an external service (Spotify), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context such as authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'random' entails (e.g., from user's library or global catalog), leaving the agent under-informed.
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 the single optional parameter 'deviceId'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying playback, which is inherent in the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline 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 action ('Play') and resource ('a random song from Spotify'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'play_track' or 'play_album' beyond the 'random' aspect, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'play_track' or 'play_playlist'. The description implies randomness but doesn't specify contexts where this is preferred over selecting specific songs, leaving the agent with little direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.