Retrieve tracks from a Spotify playlist by playlist ID, with limit and offset for pagination. Use it to list or inspect playlist contents.
Get a list of tracks in a Spotify playlist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tracks to return (1-50) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (0-based index) | |
| playlistId | Yes | The Spotify ID of the playlist |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default limit, ordering, or what the response looks like, leaving the agent to infer all of this from the schema alone.
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 efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and resource. It is terse but not under-specified to the point of uselessness.
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 simple read-only list tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given no annotations and no mention of defaults (e.g., the 50-item max limit), it leaves some behavioral context 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 all three parameters (limit, offset, playlistId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning, which is consistent with the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (get) and resource (tracks in a Spotify playlist), which is more precise than a bare tautology. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like getAlbumTracks or getPlaylist, but the resource is clear enough for an agent to identify.
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 gives no indication of when to use this versus getAlbumTracks, getRecentlyPlayed, or getTopTracks, and names no alternatives. It simply states what it returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.