mcp-deezer

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_tracks_from_playlist

Remove specific tracks from a Deezer playlist using playlist and track IDs. Use this tool to clean up playlists by deleting unwanted songs directly.

Instructions

Remove tracks from 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": "remove_tracks_from_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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It does not reveal side effects (e.g., playlist modification), error conditions, or response type, leaving the agent with minimal insight into the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise at five words, front-loading the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail that could be added without significant bloat, such as parameter context or behavioral notes.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not inform the agent about expected outcomes (e.g., success/failure), idempotency, or how the playlist changes are reflected. The sibling list suggests related operations, but the description provides no contextual ties.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. However, it does not describe what 'playlist_id' or 'track_ids' represent, relying solely on their names. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, this is insufficient for an agent to ensure correct usage.

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 clearly states the action 'remove tracks from a playlist' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'remove_track_from_favorite' or 'add_tracks_to_playlist', missing an opportunity to clarify its unique scope.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or restrictions (e.g., ownership requirements or if the operation is reversible).

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