Queue a Spotify track, album, artist, or playlist for playback by providing its ID or URI, optionally targeting a specific device.
Adds a track, album, artist or playlist to the playback queue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The Spotify ID of the item to play | |
| uri | No | The Spotify URI to play (overrides type and id) | |
| type | No | The type of item to play | |
| deviceId | No | The Spotify device ID to add the track to |
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 disclosure burden yet only restates the operation. It does not mention that Spotify playback control typically requires a Premium account, that deviceId must reference an active device, that writes affect the user's live queue, or what happens if the queue is empty.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and the accepted item types with zero filler.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits auth/Premium requirements, device-activation constraints, and any expected result, though the schema covers parameter meaning adequately.
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 100%, so all four parameters (id, uri, type, deviceId) are already documented, including the enum and the 'uri overrides type and id' rule. The description's list of item types merely mirrors the enum and adds no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (adds) and resource (track/album/artist/playlist) with the destination scope made explicit ('the playback queue'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling playMusic, so the agent must infer the queue-vs-immediate-playback distinction itself.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description never explains the relationship to playMusic (which presumably starts playback immediately) or getQueue, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an active device.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.