Retrieve related Spotify podcast shows and episodes for a given show URI to discover new podcasts. Returns normalized recommendations from Spotify's show response.
Retrieve Spotify podcast recommendations. Returns normalized related Spotify shows and episodes from Spotify's show recommendations response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | No | Spotify show URI |
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 only states it 'Returns normalized related Spotify shows and episodes', which hints at transformation but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The lack of detail on what 'normalized' means or the response structure leaves gaps.
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 concise (one sentence plus a brief return statement) with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and immediately clarifies the output, making it easy to scan.
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?
The description is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity. It mentions the key output ('normalized related Spotify shows and episodes') without an output schema. However, it could be more specific about the data structure or fields returned, especially to differentiate from similar recommendation tools.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'uri' (described as 'Spotify show URI' in schema). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 tool retrieves 'Spotify podcast recommendations' and specifies the resource ('Spotify podcast recommendations') with a specific verb ('Retrieve'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spotify_podcasts_show and spotify_podcasts_show_episodes by explicitly mentioning 'recommendations' and 'normalized related Spotify shows and episodes'.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to use, or when not to use. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., spotify_podcasts_show, spotify_podcasts_search), explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.