Retrieve Spotify popular-in charts by country code, returning country hub shelves as structured JSON for regional music insights.
Retrieve Spotify popular by country. Returns Spotify country hub shelves. The country_code parameter accepts Spotify popular-in country codes from open.spotify.com/popular-in/us.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | No | Two-letter Spotify popular-in country code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the return surface ('country hub shelves') but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, default behavior when country_code is omitted (it is not required), or what a 'shelf' contains. Significant disclosure gaps remain.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return type, then the parameter detail. No filler, though the name is effectively restated in the first sentence.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it names the return as 'shelves' without indicating structure, and never clarifies the outcome of omitting the optional country_code. It is minimally complete rather than thorough.
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 already 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value on top by pointing to the authoritative source of valid codes ('open.spotify.com/popular-in/us'), which exceeds the schema's generic 'Two-letter Spotify popular-in country code'.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve Spotify popular by country') and clarifies the return surface ('country hub shelves'), which is clearer than the bare name. It does not, however, differentiate from the closely named sibling 'spotify_featured_charts_by_country', leaving ambiguity for the agent.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent is told what the tool does but not when to reach for it over 'spotify_featured_charts_by_country' or the other Spotify shelf tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.