cloud_music_create_playlist
Create a new music playlist with a specified name and optional privacy setting.
Instructions
创建新歌单 args: name: 歌单名称 privacy: 是否设为隐私歌单,默认为 False
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| privacy | No |
Create a new music playlist with a specified name and optional privacy setting.
创建新歌单 args: name: 歌单名称 privacy: 是否设为隐私歌单,默认为 False
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| privacy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the action and parameters, but does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting existing playlists), authentication needs, or success/failure behavior.
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 short and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified; conciseness should not sacrifice completeness. It earns a 3 as it is not verbose but lacks necessary detail.
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 output schema and low parameter count, the description should cover return value, errors, and usage. It provides none of that, leaving a gap in how the agent should handle responses or edge cases.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It lists parameters with basic labels ('name: 歌单名称', 'privacy: ...默认 False') but provides no additional detail beyond the schema (e.g., allowed name length, privacy implications). Insufficient for parameter understanding.
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 '创建新歌单' meaning 'create new playlist', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cloud_music_add_to_playlist and cloud_music_search.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing context such as prerequisites (e.g., login requirement) or when creation might fail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Code-MonkeyZhang/cloud-music-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server