Build a new Spotify playlist by giving it a name, an optional description, and public or private visibility, so tracks can be grouped into a shareable collection.
Create a new playlist on Spotify
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the playlist | |
| public | No | Whether the playlist should be public | |
| description | No | The description of the playlist |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It doesn't state auth/user-scope requirements, whether the playlist starts empty, what the default visibility is if 'public' is omitted, or whether the operation is reversible (unfollowPlaylist). Only the mutation intent is conveyed.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and resource lead. It's efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves documented gaps that a slightly longer description could address.
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 tool is simple (3 flat params, 1 required), but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at minimum state default visibility behavior and that the new playlist is empty and needs addTracksToPlaylist to be useful. None of this is present.
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 all three parameters (name, public, description) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or semantic detail beyond that, 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 and resource ("Create a new playlist"), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like updatePlaylist, addTracksToPlaylist, and unfollowPlaylist. "On Spotify" is redundant given the surrounding toolset, and there's no explicit sibling differentiation, but the action is unambiguous.
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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens next (e.g., that tracks must be added separately via addTracksToPlaylist). The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.