Remove up to 40 tracks at a time from a user's Liked Songs library to manage saved music.
Remove one or more tracks from the user's "Liked Songs" library (max 40 per request)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackIds | Yes | Array of Spotify track IDs to remove (max 40) |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the batch limit (max 40 per request), but says nothing about required auth/scopes, whether removal is reversible, idempotency, or error behavior for invalid IDs — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.
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 with the action, target, and the key constraint parenthetically placed. Nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate — purpose and batch limit are covered. But with no annotations and a destructive operation, the absence of any note on permissions, irreversibility, or response shape leaves the definition short of complete.
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 the single trackIds parameter and its maxItems constraint are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the 40-item cap they already encode, adding no new semantic value.
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 (remove) and resource (tracks from the user's "Liked Songs" library), and the scoping to saved/liked tracks distinguishes it from the sibling removeTracksFromPlaylist. An agent can select it without opening the schema.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The purpose implies the use case, but the definition never says how this differs from removeTracksFromPlaylist or what preconditions must hold.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.