Retrieve Spotify track metadata by ID or URI. Get details for any track, or use the default public track when no identifier is provided.
Retrieve Spotify track details. Returns Spotify track metadata. Provide either uri or id; defaults to a known public track when omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Spotify track ID. Used when uri is omitted | |
| uri | No | Spotify track URI or open.spotify.com track URL |
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 burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavior (falls back to a known public track when no identifier is supplied) and that it returns metadata, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits.
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 return, then the invocation rule. Efficient with little waste, though the second sentence ('Returns Spotify track metadata') is close to redundant with the first.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, invocation, and default behavior adequately but leaves return shape, permissions, and failure modes unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both id and uri are already documented (including the 'used when uri is omitted' note). The description restates the either/or relationship and the default, adding marginal value; baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve Spotify track details'), which is clearly distinguishable from album/artist siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closest sibling spotify_tracks_search (search vs direct lookup).
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 sentence 'Provide either uri or id; defaults to a known public track when omitted' gives invocation guidance, but offers no when-to-use/when-not or alternatives versus spotify_tracks_search or spotify_track_recommended. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.