SpotifyMCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs (tracks, artists, playlists, playback control). The main overlap is between get_now_playing and get_currently_playing, which both report playback state but differ in detail level. Otherwise, tools are clearly separable by entity type and operation.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_*, set_*, add_to_*, remove_from_*, create_*, etc. Even exceptions like get_now_playing and get_currently_playing use the same 'get' verb with distinct nouns. The naming is highly predictable and uniform.
Tool Count2/5
With 50 tools, this server exceeds the 25+ threshold that indicates a heavy surface. While Spotify's API covers many domains, the number feels excessive for an MCP server; many getters could be consolidated (e.g., a single 'get_library_items' with type parameter). The count likely confuses agents and increases selection complexity.
Completeness3/5
The server covers core workflows: playback control, library management, playlist CRUD, search, and retrieval for all major content types. However, notable gaps exist: no follow/unfollow artists, no delete playlist, no queue editing (only add), and no playback history beyond recently played. These missing operations create dead ends for certain agent tasks.
Average 3.5/5 across 50 of 50 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'remove' without mentioning that this permanently alters the library, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It fails to provide any detail beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though it could potentially include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the relationship to 'save_items' or clarify that it affects saved library contents, nor does it provide any usage tips. An agent calling this tool would have to infer most context from the name alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'uris' parameter with a clear description ('Spotify URIs to remove') and maxItems constraint. The description's 'Max 50' restates schema data without adding new meaning, so it adds no value beyond the structured definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('user's library'), which aligns with the tool name. It is distinct from siblings like 'save_items' and 'check_saved_items' by nature of the verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate from them in the text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_items' or 'remove_from_playlist'. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, does not mention authentication, error handling, or any side effects. It only states the purpose without any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no unnecessary words. The key action and target are immediately clear, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, market behavior, or potential error scenarios. It only says 'full details' without specifying what those include, leaving an agent with limited information for robust invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (id and market) have descriptive names and clear schema descriptions (Spotify episode ID, ISO country code). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning; the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('podcast episode'), clearly indicating the tool fetches details for a single episode. It is distinguished from siblings like get_show_episodes (which lists episodes) and get_chapter (which targets audiobook chapters), though 'full details' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_show_episodes, nor any mention of context or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' (implying read-only) but does not reveal any behaviors such as error handling, authentication prerequisites, or whether the URLs are for multiple sizes. It does not mention what happens if a playlist has no cover, nor any rate-limiting considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundancy, making it concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns a 'concise' rating, though it might be considered overly terse given the lack of auxiliary information. Still, as a structure, it is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is thin. It fails to mention what the response looks like (e.g., an array of URLs, default images) or any edge cases. Since annotations and output schema are absent, the description should compensate with more detail, but it does not. The tool is functionally callable, but an agent lacks context on expected return values or failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% (playlist_id has a clear description 'Playlist ID'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or usage nuances. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not add extra semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('playlist's cover image URLs'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like upload_playlist_cover (an upload) and get_playlist (which may return broader playlist data). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from get_playlist, which could also return cover images, so a clear purpose is present but sibling differentiation is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_playlist might be a more comprehensive choice, or that this tool is specifically for fetching cover image URLs. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is given, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get recently played tracks with timestamps,' implying a read operation but gives no information about pagination, ordering, authentication, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a read tool with no annotation safety net, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and avoids repetition of schema details. It's appropriately sized, though arguably too terse to cover more context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should convey what the tool returns. It says 'tracks with timestamps' but doesn't clarify whether the result is a list, its ordering (e.g., most recent first), or how pagination works beyond the limit parameter. The absence of such detail makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (after, limit, before). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema already explains the meaning and defaults adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('recently played tracks') and adds the detail 'with timestamps.' This distinguishes it from current-play tools like get_now_playing and get_currently_playing, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. The intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_now_playing or get_currently_playing. The name implies historical plays, but the description doesn't state that or offer any exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name or sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'move playback' without disclosing side effects such as stopping current device playback, requiring an active session, or the effect of the 'play' parameter. This is opaque for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function with no superfluous words. Perfectly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the 'play' parameter's purpose beyond the schema, what happens to the source device, or any required conditions. Agents may not anticipate side effects without additional detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of parameter usage or edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Move playback') and resource ('different Spotify Connect device'), which is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like 'play' or 'get_devices'. It lacks extra specificity such as 'transfer to a target device' but the intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active playback session) or differentiation from 'play', which could also invoke device switching. The context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' implying mutation but doesn't indicate whether it performs a partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, if authentication is required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, and the list of attributes is compact. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain update semantics (partial vs full), the need for an existing playlist, the role of the required id, or the collaborative field. An agent would likely need to infer or inspect the schema to call this correctly, which is a substantial gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds marginal value by enumerating some fields (name, description, visibility) but omits collaborative and doesn't emphasize that id is required. It doesn't compensate for any gaps since coverage is complete, but it doesn't confuse either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (playlist), and lists three attributes (name, description, visibility) that map to schema properties (public for visibility). It distinguishes from siblings like create_playlist or add_to_playlist. However, it omits the collaborative attribute, making the scope slightly incomplete and potentially confusing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for modifying playlist metadata (as opposed to adding/removing tracks or reordering items), nor does it state any prerequisites or edge cases. The description is purely definitional with no contextual usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that seeking occurs; it does not reveal whether this is a mutation that could fail without active playback, whether it affects pause state, or what happens if no track is loaded. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a major omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It efficiently states the core action and target resource without padding, which is exactly appropriate for a tool this simple.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify operational context such as requiring an active track, whether the pause state is preserved, and how the device_id interacts with seeking. The description omits all of this, leaving an agent unable to fully anticipate failure modes or side effects beyond the simple schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about position_ms (e.g., unit, range beyond minimum 0) or device_id (e.g., when it is required or optional behavior). The schema already documents these fields adequately, so the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Seek') and resource ('current track'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like play, pause, skip_next, and skip_previous. The purpose is unambiguous and no other sibling performs position-seeking within a track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. It does not mention that playback must be active, that a device may need to be specified, or that seeking behaves differently when paused. The usage context is entirely left to inference from the schema and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the return content (details and track list) but not HTTP method, authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects. It is a static description that adds little beyond the name, lacking operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, complete sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and remains appropriately sized for a simple tool. Nothing wastes space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essence of the operation. However, it lacks usage differentiation and fails to mention common operational details like pagination or that it may return a full album object. It is minimally adequate but incomplete in routing the agent correctly among siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter clearly described as 'Spotify album ID'. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond restating that it works by ID. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'album', and specifies that it returns both details and track list. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_album_tracks' which likely returns only tracks, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_album_tracks' or 'get_track'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer suitable usage contexts without any exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a simple listing action. It doesn't mention pagination (limit), the include_groups filter, default behavior, or anything about the response shape. For a read-only tool this is minimally acceptable, but it doesn't go beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It's appropriately short for a simple listing tool, though it could have incorporated a hint about filtering options. The front-loading of the core action is good, but given the tool's multiple parameters, slightly more detail would not hurt.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too terse. It doesn't explain that include_groups can extend beyond albums/singles, that pagination is available, or how this fits into a larger workflow. An agent might not know about the filtering capability unless it opens the schema, which the description should ideally supplement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter (id, limit, include_groups) with clear meanings and defaults. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List an artist's albums and singles' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_artist, get_album, and get_track. The resource scope (artist's albums and singles) is unambiguous and immediately tells an agent what this tool is for.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 50+ sibling tools, an agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone. There's no mention of when to default to this rather than, say, get_album for a specific album or get_artist for artist info. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It merely states what is retrieved and does not mention potential side effects (e.g., is it read-only?), error cases (e.g., nothing currently playing), or whether it requires an active device. This is minimal behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. It contains no filler or redundant phrases and communicates the tool's purpose efficiently. It earns a 5 for being appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'full playback state' includes (e.g., progress, device, shuffle mode) to set expectations. Additionally, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling 'get_currently_playing', leaving a significant contextual gap for correct tool selection. The information provided is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the return value and when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing to document. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description correctly stays silent on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (currently playing track/episode with full playback state). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_currently_playing', which appears to be a near-synonym. Without differentiation, an agent may be unsure which to call, so it does not fully achieve a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparison with other playback-state tools. The description does not help the agent select this tool over get_currently_playing or any other sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get full details' without disclosing what details are returned, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple GET tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource but doesn't hint at the shape of the response or any optional behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail on expected return fields would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' as Spotify show ID and 'market' as ISO country code) already documented. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get full details for a podcast show' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (podcast show), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_show_episodes or get_episode. It is specific enough, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools covering shows, episodes, and audiobooks, the description offers no context for selection or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose mutation behavior. It only says 'Move', implying mutation, but does not mention whether the operation is reversible, requires ownership, or how indices shift. This is insufficient given no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it omits important guidance, though conciseness itself is high.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the semantics of 'range' or 'insert_before', nor the effect on playlist order. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without reading the schema further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so it does not elevate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Move' and resource 'items within a playlist', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_to_playlist or remove_from_playlist. It also includes the concept of a 'range', matching the range_start and range_length parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_to_playlist or remove_from_playlist. It does not state conditions or prerequisites (e.g., ownership, playlist modification rights).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action itself, offering no information about side effects (e.g., toggling shuffle state), required permissions, device targeting behavior, or potential failures. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise and front-loaded, immediately conveying the core action without wasted prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean toggle with an optional device ID, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient for an agent aware of the surrounding toolset. However, it lacks any mention of the effect on current playback or the need for an active device, which are relevant for correct usage. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'state' and 'device_id'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already documents the parameters well, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'shuffle mode', which precisely conveys the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings like set_repeat because it explicitly names the shuffle function, though it doesn't mention the context of playback device or queue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like an active device or ongoing playback. It simply describes the action without context, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the 100-URI limit, but does not state that this is a mutation, any auth requirements, error behavior on invalid playlist/URIs, or idempotency. 'Add' implies a write, but side effects are not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that front-load the action and the key constraint. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately sized for a simple add operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and lacks context about side effects, requirements, and expected outcomes. No output schema exists, and the description does not explain success/failure behavior, making it incomplete for an agent performing a mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, and the description only repeats the limit already in the schema (maxItems). It adds no further semantics about URI format, deduplication, or interaction with the position parameter beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add tracks or episodes to a playlist') and adds the 'Max 100 URIs per call' qualifier. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like remove_from_playlist, update_playlist, and create_playlist. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_to_queue or save_items. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., playlist must exist) or any explicit conditions for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses pagination and market constraints, but does not describe the response format, error behavior, or any side effects. For a read-only listing tool, more context about the output structure would be expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence, while useful, partially repeats the market restriction already present in the schema, but the description remains efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and market limitation but omits response characteristics. It is minimally viable for an agent to call correctly, but could be more complete with pagination details or return expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds only redundant reinforcement of pagination and market restrictions; no new semantic value is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific action ('List the chapters of an audiobook') and resource, which is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_audiobook or get_chapter, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions pagination and market availability, giving some context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_audiobook for audiobook metadata) or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cursor-based pagination, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, response format, or any potential side effects (though there are none). The pagination note adds value, but other behavioral aspects are left uncovered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the core function and the pagination characteristic. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant details. For a simple getter tool, this level of brevity is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and pagination behavior. It could mention that it returns a list of artist objects and how to use the cursor for subsequent calls, but the schema already clarifies the cursor's role. It is adequate but misses some context like the return type and iteration pattern.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% – both 'after' and 'limit' are described in the input schema. The description's mention of cursor-based pagination simply restates the schema's 'after' description ('Artist ID cursor for pagination'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'all artists the user follows,' which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from many siblings by the scope of 'artists the user follows,' though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like check_following_artists. The purpose is clear without needing to open the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that check_following_artists exists for checking specific artists, or when pagination might need to be handled. The description offers no context about conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether active playback is required, what the response format looks like, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves key details implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the operation and resource. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter getter, the description is technically callable, but it omits any mention of the return structure or prerequisites (e.g., active playback). Given that there is no output schema, the agent must infer the response format, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to clarify. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and the description adequately handles the lack of parameters without needing extra detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Get the current playback queue'), making the core purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_now_playing or get_currently_playing, which could overlap in function, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose between this and similar get-type tools (e.g., get_now_playing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination and the resume-position scope requirement, which is useful. However, it does not mention the read-only nature, response format, or error behavior (e.g., invalid show ID). The added context is moderate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. No fluff, and the scope note is relevant. Efficient use of space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers purpose and one authorization detail. However, it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and any mention of output or error handling, leaving the agent to infer some calling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Its mention of pagination is generic and does not clarify the limit/offset semantics further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists a podcast show's episodes and mentions pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_show (show details) and get_episode (single episode) even without explicitly naming them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for listing episodes of a show, or when to prefer get_episode for a single episode. The scope requirement is mentioned but not framed around usage selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'start or resume' but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it replaces the current queue, what happens if no device is specified, or side effects on existing playback state. It also does not explain the difference between using uris vs context_uri, which is behaviorally significant. This is a thin description for a state-mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no superfluous words. It is concise and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain typical use cases, the distinction between uris and context_uri, when to resume vs start fresh, or what errors might occur. It also fails to distinguish itself from play_from_search, leaving the agent uncertain about tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'optionally target specific content', which does not clarify parameter interactions or selection criteria. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Start or resume playback') and resource ('playback'), and mentions optional targeting of content. It is distinct from siblings like play_from_search, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is clear but could be more precise about the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a general playback control tool, with optional content targeting. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of play_from_search or other siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states what the tool does without revealing side effects (e.g., whether removal is permanent), error conditions (e.g., handling of nonexistent URIs), or return value. It does not mention that this is a destructive write operation, which is important for an agent to know.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what response the agent can expect (e.g., whether it returns the updated playlist or a simple success indicator), or mention any auth requirements or rate limits. For a write operation, this lack of context could lead to incorrect assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions ('Playlist ID' and 'URIs to remove'). The description adds the clarification that the URIs can be tracks or episodes, which is useful but not substantial. Since schema coverage is 100%, this is minimally adequate but not enriching.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove tracks or episodes from a playlist' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (tracks/episodes from a playlist). It differentiates from sibling tools like add_to_playlist and update_playlist since it specifically targets removal, and from remove_saved_items which targets saved items rather than playlist contents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for modifying a user's playlist, nor does it disambiguate from similar operations like removing saved items or reordering playlist items. An agent would need to infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation (skipping) but does not mention side effects, requirements (e.g., active device or playback), failure modes, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a state-changing action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description is thin. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., active playback), error behavior when there is no next track, or the meaning of 'context'. The tool is simple, but the description leaves critical operational details unstated, making an agent uncertain about when and how it can be invoked successfully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% – the device_id parameter is described as 'Target device ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Skip to the next track') and the resource ('queue or context'). It is clear and distinguishable from siblings like skip_previous. The term 'context' is slightly vague but does not obscure the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (advance playback) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives or conditions, such as needing an active playback session or failing when at the end of the queue. For a straightforward control this is acceptable but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. There is no mention of pagination behavior or how results are ordered. For a simple getter this may be adequate, but given no annotations, more disclosure would be expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no output schema and well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., user authorization), nor does it hint at the response format. However, given the low complexity and clear schema, an agent could call it without missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('limit' and 'time_range'), with complete descriptions of ranges and defaults. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the user's most-played tracks' uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('user's most-played tracks'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_top_artists (artists vs tracks) and get_recently_played (recent vs top). The purpose is unambiguous and easily matches an agent's intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_top_artists should be used for artists, or that get_recently_played is for recent history. An agent must infer usage from the name and purpose, which is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the core action but omits critical behavioral traits: whether an active device is required, whether playback is affected, what the response looks like, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this level of detail is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, object, and scope are all present, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral transparency (e.g., device requirements), and doesn't explain the role of device_id. Given sibling tools and the need to decide when to use it, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds little beyond that—it merely restates that tracks or episodes are accepted. It does not clarify when device_id is needed or that it is optional (since only uri is required), so no meaningful semantic value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Add' with a specific resource ('track or episode') and a precise destination ('end of the playback queue'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from adding to a playlist (add_to_playlist) and from queue inspection (get_queue), leaving no doubt about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys the action but offers no explicit guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives like play_from_search or add_to_playlist. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., 'use this to queue without interrupting current playback'), leaving the decision to inference rather than direct instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination, but does not disclose return format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple read operation this is minimal, but it adds little beyond what the name and schema already indicate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a key qualifier (pagination). Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the description lacks details about the response format (e.g., array of track objects, fields returned) and any error conditions. Given no output schema and no annotations, a slightly more descriptive definition would be more complete for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('tracks of an album'), and a distinguishing feature ('with pagination'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_album (album metadata) and get_artist_albums (album list) by specifying the target is the album's tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need an album's tracks), but it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives such as get_album or get_artist_albums. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get artist info by ID' without any details about the response format, possible errors, rate limits, or whether it requires authentication. Since it is a read operation, the lack of any behavioral context is a notable gap for an agent that needs to rely on this description alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key qualifier. There is zero waste, and it is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but acceptable. However, it does not specify what 'artist info' includes (e.g., name, genres, popularity), so an agent might not know the full scope of the response. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% – the only parameter, 'id', is already described as 'Spotify artist ID'. The description's phrase 'by ID' does not add anything beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the parameter fully, and the description adds no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('artist info'), and a method ('by ID'). It is unambiguous and effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_artist_albums, which imply a different resource. Even without explicit sibling comparison, the purpose is crystal clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is so straightforward that usage context is implied. An agent can infer that this tool is for fetching artist metadata when an ID is available. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or specific scenarios (e.g., when you need full artist details vs. albums).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a 'poll' of current state, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, rate limits, or what happens when nothing is playing. The description is not misleading but lacks explicit safety or error semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the key action ('Lightweight poll'), immediately clarifying the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description reasonably conveys what the tool does and what it returns. It could state behavior when nothing is playing, but that is a minor gap. The tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema. Per baseline, a tool with no parameters receives a 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details, which are unnecessary here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool polls current playback and returns the item, progress, and playing state. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'get_now_playing', which could confuse an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'lightweight poll', which implies a use case but does not state when to prefer it over 'get_now_playing' or other playback controls. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List', which is accurate, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of the response. For a simple read tool this is minimally adequate, but no extra context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and accomplishes its purpose with minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool successfully. It does not describe the response format, but 'list available devices' implies a collection of device objects, which is likely enough for basic use. Some might expect details on device structure, but the absence is not critical for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none to document. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds no unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Spotify Connect devices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transfer_playback by focusing on listing rather than transferring. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrasting use case, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related actions such as transferring playback or checking device availability before playback. The usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It repeats the fetch_all behavior that is already fully documented in the schema ('Fetch all pages instead of one page (ignores limit/offset; capped at 500 items)'), adding no new information. It does not disclose pagination behavior for the default case, response format, or any side effects, so the description offers minimal transparency beyond structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the fetch_all note is placed second. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick agent parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does not describe the return format (e.g., an array of show objects) or pagination specifics beyond the schema-repeated fetch_all cap. It adequately covers the core use case but lacks hints about response structure or edge cases, making it minimally complete for a simple list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, fetch_all) with clear meanings. The description adds only a partial restatement of fetch_all ('Set fetch_all=true to retrieve the entire collection (capped at 500 items)') that duplicates the schema, and provides no additional context for limit/offset. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get podcast shows saved in the user's library.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_saved_tracks or get_saved_albums, which target different content types. The purpose is specific and immediately actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you need the user's saved shows) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_saved_episodes or get_show. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool routing, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function, not how it behaves—no mention of pagination, the fetch_all option, default limits, or what the response contains. The schema descriptions for limit/offset/fetch_all partially compensate, but the description itself fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the bare 'list' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three optional parameters and no output schema. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the description does not mention pagination, the fetch_all behavior, or the expected response shape. For a list endpoint, this is a minimal but acceptable level of completeness—an agent can infer the pagination mechanism from the parameters, but the description alone lacks sufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior without inspecting the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%—all three parameters (limit, offset, fetch_all) are described in the schema, including their ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the rubric sets a baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high. Since the description does not elevate understanding beyond the schema, the baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the current user's playlists'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_playlist (which retrieves a specific playlist by ID) and create_playlist. The phrase 'current user' unambiguously scopes the operation to the authenticated user, making the tool's purpose instantly understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to enumerate the user's playlists) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_playlist, create_playlist, or add_to_playlist exist, but the description offers no direct comparison or guidance on when not to use this tool. The context is clear, but no explicit routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, such as what happens if no active device exists, whether the device_id parameter overrides the active device, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and does not add transparency beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not clarify edge cases like failure modes or what 'active device' means, which might be important for an agent invoking it correctly. Given no annotations, more context would be helpful, but the simplicity keeps it at a baseline level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (device_id with description 'Target device ID'), so the description does not need to add much. However, the description does not elaborate on how device_id affects behavior (e.g., pausing a specific device vs. the active one). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Pause' and the resource 'playback on the active device', which distinguishes it from siblings like play, skip_next, and seek. It is specific and unambiguous for a simple command.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when the user wants to pause playback) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, such as 'use play to resume' or behavior when no device is active. It provides clear context but no direct comparison to others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the effect ('set volume') without clarifying side effects, whether device_id is required or optional in practice, whether it affects the active session, or any potential failure modes. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no excess verbiage. It front-loads the action and the acceptable range, making it immediately actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not explain the role of device_id (e.g., whether omission targets the default device) or any observable outcomes. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more context would be warranted, hence a mid-range score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it repeats the volume range but does not explain device_id semantics or the relationship between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (set volume) and the resource (playback volume) with an explicit range (0–100). It is distinct from sibling tools like seek or set_shuffle, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as default device behavior. The purpose is self-evident, but there is no explicit direction to disambiguate from other playback controls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the resume position feature requires the 'user-read-playback-position' scope, which is useful, and it specifies market availability. However, it does not mention the overall authentication requirement, whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), rate limits, or error behavior. It provides some context but leaves several behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by critical constraints (scope and market). It is front-loaded and efficient. It could improve by adding an explicit pointer to a sibling tool for listing chapters, but that is optional and would not add much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (two params, no output schema), and the description covers the purpose, a scope requirement, and market restrictions. However, it does not specify what 'full details' includes (e.g., chapter duration, audio preview, narration) nor any error handling. Given no output schema, the agent must infer the return structure. For a simple GET this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and market) with 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the market availability but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema. Thus it adds minimal value over the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full details for a single audiobook chapter'), and the identifier ('by ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like get_audiobook (for the audiobook itself) and get_audiobook_chapters (for listing chapters). It leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The 'Resume position' scope requirement is a prerequisite for a feature, not usage guidance. Usage context is implied by the resource type, but there is no direct instruction like 'use get_audiobook_chapters to list all chapters'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get the user's most-played artists' clearly implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, return data shape, or pagination. For a read endpoint this is acceptable but not deeply transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource without any redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description plus the schema are sufficient for a basic retrieval call. It could mention that the result is a list of artist objects, but that is reasonably inferable from the resource name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (limit with 1–50 range and default 20, time_range with enum values and default). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the user's most-played artists'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_top_tracks' and 'get_recently_played' by naming the exact entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions are provided. An agent must infer that top-artists queries belong here without any explicit direction, and even though the name helps, the description doesn't state why this tool is preferred over similar retrieval endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the scope requirement and the 403 error, which is valuable. However, it does not mention success behavior, reversibility, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then provides the critical scope requirement. No filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers the main operational detail (scope requirement) and failure mode. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention that the playlist must exist or that the cover replaces the existing one, but these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond implicitly noting the JPEG format, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Replace') and resource ('a playlist's cover image') with the method (base64-encoded JPEG). It is distinguishable from the sibling get_playlist_cover by implying the write operation, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete prerequisite (ugc-image-upload scope plus playlist-modify-public/private) and a failure condition (403 without it). This gives clear usage context, though it does not discuss alternatives or contrast with other playlist tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns a boolean per ID (output shape) and enforces a max of 50, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or requires authentication, though the nature of a check suggests read-only behavior. The description adds value but leaves some behavioral aspects unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that deliver purpose, output format, and constraints with zero fluff. Critical details are front-loaded: the verb and resource come first, followed by the return type and limit. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple check tool with one parameter, the description provides essential information: what it does, what it returns, and the size limit. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to get_followed_artists, and since there is no output schema, it does not specify whether the boolean result is returned as an array in the same order as input IDs. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps an agent would need to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage—the 'ids' parameter is described as 'Spotify artist IDs to check' and includes maxItems. The description's mention of 'Max 50' is redundant with the schema. It adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('if the user follows specific artists'), and defines the output ('Returns a boolean per ID') plus a limit ('Max 50'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_followed_artists, which presumably lists all followed artists rather than checking specific IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys its purpose—checking specific artist IDs—which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_followed_artists or state when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so an agent must infer the differentiation from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Create a new playlist') without mentioning side effects, required permissions, whether the playlist is created empty, or what the tool returns. As a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It communicates the essential purpose immediately. The structure is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool, the description covers the core action and scope. However, it lacks any mention of behavioral details such as return value, authentication requirements, or that the playlist is created empty. Without an output schema, agents are left guessing about the response format. Given the absence of annotations, more context would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (name, public, description, collaborative) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('playlist'), and clarifies scope ('for the current user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_playlist, add_to_playlist, or remove_from_playlist. No ambiguity about the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool's purpose—creating a new playlist—which implies it is for new creations, not modifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use update_playlist to modify an existing playlist'). The context is clear enough, but exclusions are not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (returns metadata and items) and adds a helpful detail ('including cover image') not present in the schema. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or that fetch_all can retrieve up to 500 items—though those are partly covered by the schema. It is not misleading but adds limited behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the function and key included detail. There is no waste or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential function but is terse for a tool with pagination and a fetch_all flag. It does not specify what 'items' contains (e.g., full track objects vs. IDs) or elaborate on the metadata structure, and there is no output schema to compensate. An agent might need to infer item format. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (id, limit, offset, fetch_all) are already documented. The description only implies that limit/offset/fetch_all apply to items, but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a playlist'), and the precise output ('metadata (including cover image) and items'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_playlist_cover (which only fetches cover) and get_user_playlists (which lists user's playlists), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need playlist metadata and items) but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives like get_playlist_cover or get_user_playlists. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but it lacks explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it plays the best match, but does not mention what happens if no match is found, whether it requires an active device, or that it may interrupt current playback. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with well-described parameters, the description covers the main intent. However, it omits failure behavior (no match found) and side effects on playback state, which an agent would need to know for a mutation operation. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the query is searched by name and that no URI is needed, and it maps search_type to explicit content types (songs and episodes). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (search and play) with a clear resource (Spotify content by name). It explicitly mentions scope (songs and podcast episodes) and differentiates itself from siblings by noting 'no URI needed.' This is not a tautology and stands distinct from the search and play tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case (quick play by name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or play, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., when a URI is already known). Guidance is implicit at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the fallback behavior when multiple types are searched (no track/album fallback noise), which is useful. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a search tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the key usage tip about `types` follows immediately. Every word adds value, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficiently complete for a search tool with 4 parameters, all documented in the schema. It covers the purpose, the principal parameter behavior (types), and the range of content types. It doesn't address pagination or result format, but those are minor gaps given the schema and the nature of search. The description enables an agent to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds extra meaning specifically for the `types` parameter, explaining the fallback behavior and how to pass a single type. This goes beyond the schema's static enum description and improves agent understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (Spotify's catalog) and enumerates the content types (tracks, artists, albums, playlists, shows, episodes). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_track and get_artist, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a usage tip about passing `types` as an array to avoid fallback noise, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many specific getter tools (e.g., get_track, get_artist) or when not to use it. The guidance is about parameter usage, not about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly reveal the market restriction (only US/UK/Canada/Ireland/NZ/Australia), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or authentication requirements. For a read-only 'get' operation, the market caveat is key, but other behaviors remain opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then adds the essential market constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the core action and the key market limitation. Given that the schema already documents both parameters and no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool. It doesn't spell out the return type, but 'full details' implies an object, and the market caveat is the most critical contextual detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptive comments ('Spotify audiobook ID' and the ISO market code with the market restriction). The tool description adds no extra meaning for parameters—it only repeats the market availability. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('audiobook'), and the method ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_audiobook_chapters' (which fetches chapters, not full details) and 'get_saved_audiobooks' (which returns a list). The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an audiobook ID is present and full details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use scenarios, or clarify distinctions from sibling tools. The market restriction adds context but doesn't guide selection among similar 'get' tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (save) but does not disclose idempotency, duplicate handling, partial failure behavior, or the exact HTTP response on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Save one or more items') and immediately provides the key constraint (max 50). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential input details: accepted URI types, max items, and the target resource. For a simple one-parameter mutation, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like error handling and idempotency are not critical for a basic library-save operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'uris' parameter with an example. The description adds value by specifying the accepted URI types (track, album, show, episode) and reinforcing the max limit of 50, going beyond the schema's generic 'Spotify URIs' description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('items to the user's library'), and enumerates the exact URI types accepted (track, album, show, episode). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_saved_items and check_saved_items without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to add items to the library) but does not explicitly contrast it with the complementary siblings (remove_saved_items, check_saved_items) or mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication). It is clear enough for basic routing but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the fetch_all behavior and the 500-item cap, but this information is already present in the input schema for fetch_all. It does not explicitly state that a default single page is returned without fetch_all (though implied), nor does it mention any auth or side effects. For a read-only getter, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the one special behaviour (fetch_all). Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the operation and the special fetch_all option. It does not describe return format or pagination defaults, but those are not necessary given the schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (limit, market, offset, fetch_all) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond repeating the cap for fetch_all. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('albums saved in the user's library'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_saved_tracks or get_saved_shows. It also mentions the fetch_all behavior that sets this apart from a simple page fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance on when to use fetch_all (to retrieve the entire collection) and notes the cap at 500 items. It does not explicitly name alternatives for saved tracks/shows, but the resource name and context make that obvious. Minimal exclusions, but enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior independently. It does mention the 'user-library-read' scope requirement, which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe pagination behavior beyond what the schema already covers, nor does it mention potential errors, rate limits, or the return format. For a list operation, these gaps are moderate, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, followed by the scope requirement. It contains no fluff and every word contributes to the tool's purpose. This is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it lists and the required scope. It could mention that results are paginated, but that is already implied by the limit/offset parameters. The lack of an output schema means the description might need to state what is returned (e.g., an array of audiobook objects), but this is a minor omission given the typical expectation. Overall, it is nearly complete for its complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the two parameters (limit and offset), and the description adds no additional meaning about parameters. It doesn't explain how to use limit/offset or any special semantics, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'audiobooks saved in the current user's Spotify library,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other saved types (tracks, albums, shows). It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context (it's for saved audiobooks) and names a required scope (user-library-read), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't mention any exclusions or route to siblings like get_saved_tracks, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 500-item cap and that fetch_all overrides limit/offset, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or the return structure, which could be relevant for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the key behavioral nuance (fetch_all cap) is included without padding. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema documentation, the description adequately covers the essential behaviors: pagination via limit/offset, the fetch_all mode, and the 500-item cap. No output schema exists, so return format is not specified, but for a list retrieval this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description repeats the fetch_all behavior and the 500 cap, which are already in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds minimal extra value beyond what an agent would read from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves podcast episodes saved in the user's library, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_saved_tracks or get_saved_shows, even without naming them. The mention of fetch_all behavior adds clarity about its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on how to use the tool, including the distinction between fetching a single page and using fetch_all for the full collection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity (podcast episodes) makes selection straightforward among the many get_saved_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: with fetch_all, the collection is capped at 500 items. It also implies by 'Set fetch_all=true' that the default behavior returns only a single page, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact response structure (no output schema). For a read-only tool, these gaps are moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and then provides the single most important usage nuance (fetch_all) in the second sentence. Every word contributes to meaning; there is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and the key fetch_all behavior. It does not describe the default pagination behavior (that a single page of 20 items is returned per default limit) which is inferable from the schema defaults, nor does it detail the response object shape since no output schema exists. However, for a list-retrieval tool in a well-understood domain, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all four parameters have descriptive text in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning for limit, market, or offset beyond what the schema already provides. It does repeat the 'capped at 500 items' detail for fetch_all, but that is already present in the schema's description of fetch_all, so no value is added. The description does not clarify any parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb 'Get' and a precise resource 'tracks saved in the user's Liked Songs'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_saved_albums, get_saved_shows, etc., which target different resource types. The phrase 'Liked Songs' is the exact user-facing term for this collection, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a concrete usage hint: 'Set fetch_all=true to retrieve the entire collection (capped at 500 items)'. This tells the agent when to use the fetch_all flag. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_saved_albums or get_saved_shows, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The usage guidance is implicit from the name and purpose, but a note about using the specific sibling for other saved types would have been clearer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no state changes, and there is no contradiction. It does not disclose error handling or auth requirements, but for a simple getter this is acceptable and transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. The action and resource are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states what the user wants and how to get it. The only minor gap is not elaborating on what 'full details' includes, but that is not required to successfully invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully covers the 'id' parameter with a clear description ('Spotify track ID'), so the schema already provides the necessary semantic. The tool description adds nothing beyond this, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('track'), and the key attribute ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling getters like get_album, get_show, or get_episode, so an agent can identify when to use it without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a track ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as search. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers the single most valuable hidden trait: the restart-current-track-if-more-than-3-seconds-in behavior. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent could not infer and confirms this is a state-mutating operation without the annotations saying so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the critical edge-case behavior in the second. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool — one optional parameter, no output schema, no nesting — and the description covers the action plus its key behavioral trap. A return-format description would be marginally useful but is not critical for a transport control like this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — 'device_id' is already documented as 'Target device ID' in the input schema, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at baseline given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Skip to the previous track' — that is unambiguous and self-evidently distinct from its skip_next sibling. It reads as a real action description, not a tautology of the tool name, and the direction ('previous' vs 'next') is inherent to the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description delivers a useful behavioral nuance (restarting the current track past 3 seconds) but gives no explicit routing guidance — no 'use this when…' or 'instead of skip_next/seek…'. Selection context is implied by the tool name rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return format (boolean per URI) and the max count (40), which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor does it mention error behavior (e.g., invalid URIs) or authentication expectations. For a simple check tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return-type note and limit are efficient additions. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and a straightforward behavior, the description provides all essential information: what it does, what it returns, and the maximum batch size. An agent can confidently invoke this tool without further clarification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'uris' parameter fully (array of strings, max 40). The description adds value by stating 'Returns a boolean per URI', which implies an element-wise mapping to the input order — a semantic not present in the schema. This reinforces the limit and clarifies the correspondence between input and output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether items are saved in the user's library' and specifies the return type ('boolean per URI'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_saved_tracks (which retrieve full lists) and save_items/remove_saved_items (which mutate). The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: to verify if specific items are saved without retrieving the full library, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like get_saved_tracks or check_following_artists. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the common scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the semantics of the repeat modes but does not mention side effects (e.g., affecting current playback), prerequisites (e.g., active device), or the optional device_id parameter's role. This is acceptable for a simple setter but not richly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then explains the value options. No wasted words; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple state-setting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It explains the state values and implies the action. Minor gaps like device behavior are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the optional device_id in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'state' parameter by explaining what 'context' and 'track' mean, going beyond the enum labels. The device_id parameter is not elaborated, but its schema description is adequate, so the description adds value overall.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('set') and resource ('repeat mode'), and clearly differentiates from siblings like set_shuffle and set_volume. It also enumerates the three possible states, making it unambiguous what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining that 'context' means repeat playlist/album and 'track' means repeat single track, which helps an agent select the right state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the tool is distinct enough among playback controls that usage is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states scope requirements for email, country, and product fields, which is a key behavioral constraint. It implies a read-only operation, though it does not describe behavior in case of missing scopes or authentication failures—a minor gap given the simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Exactly two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and returned fields; the second adds scope prerequisites. Both sentences are necessary and front-loaded, earning their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameter-less endpoint with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned and what permissions are needed. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional details. No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per calibration, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it appropriately focuses on response fields instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'current user's Spotify profile', and lists the specific fields returned (display name, user ID, email, country, subscription level). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_playlists, which retrieve a different resource. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context by specifying the required OAuth scopes (user-read-email and user-read-private) for certain fields, which tells the agent about prerequisites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling tool offers the same functionality, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spotify-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NovaLux12/spotify-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NovaLux12/spotify-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spotify-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NovaLux12/spotify-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NovaLux12/spotify-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NovaLux12/spotify-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server