Retrieve the currently playing Spotify track and a set number of upcoming queue items to see what is playing and what comes next.
Get a list of the currently playing track and the next items in your Spotify queue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of upcoming items to show (1-50) |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It states that it returns a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, return format, or whether the queue is user-specific. A 3 is appropriate for a simple read tool with no annotations and minimal behavioral detail.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately sized and contains no wasted words.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the essential purpose, but without annotations or an output schema, it could have mentioned that it returns only the queue for the current user or that it requires authentication. However, for a basic read operation, it is adequate.
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?
The schema fully documents the single 'limit' parameter (100% coverage). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is correct.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('queue'), and specifies it returns the current track plus a list of upcoming items. It is distinguishable from getNowPlaying, which returns only the currently playing track.
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?
Usage context is implied—the tool retrieves queue contents—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like getNowPlaying. The distinction is clear from the description, but it is not stated as a use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.