mcp-deezer

by Benitoow

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

add_tracks_to_playlist

Add multiple tracks to a Deezer playlist by providing the playlist ID and a list of track IDs.

Instructions

Add tracks to a playlist.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "playlist_id": "<playlist_id>",
      "track_ids": "<track_ids>"
    },
    "name": "add_tracks_to_playlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`track_ids`	Yes
`playlist_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 offers no details on behavioral aspects such as whether tracks are appended or overwritten, duplicate handling, or authorization requirements. The minimal description does not compensate for missing annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise at five words. It is front-loaded but lacks structure or elaboration. For such a simple tool, brevity is acceptable, but the description could benefit from a sentence clarifying the parameter roles or outcome.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of a clear schema, the minimal description might suffice for straightforward use. However, with many sibling tools and no output schema, the description is incomplete for full context, especially regarding what the tool returns or side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no information about the parameters. While the parameter names 'playlist_id' and 'track_ids' are self-explanatory, the description fails to provide any additional context or format expectations, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add tracks to a playlist' clearly states the verb 'add' and the resource 'tracks to a playlist'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_track_to_favorite' and 'remove_tracks_from_playlist' by the resource and action. However, it does not specify that multiple tracks can be added, which is implied by the parameter array type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like ownership or existence of the playlist, nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'add_track_to_favorite' or 'remove_tracks_from_playlist'.

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