Cancel an ongoing wind-down ramp on Spotify to stop the gradual volume decrease or playback pause before it completes.
Cancel the in-process wind-down ramp, if one is running
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | No | Only cancel if the active wind-down targets this device id | |
| response_format | No | 'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object | concise |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.26.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description discloses that it affects an in-process ramp and is conditional, but does not explain what happens to the ramp synchronization (e.g., devices return to original volume, whether any state is persisted) or any side effects beyond cancellation. Since annotations are sparse, the description carries more burden but still falls short of fully disclosing behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and immediately states the condition. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks details about scenarios (e.g., no ramp running), which might be handled by tool logic, but for a simple cancel operation it's sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what's in the schema; device_id's purpose is already clear. For a simple tool, this is acceptable, but it doesn't add nuance like whether omitting device_id cancels all ramps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (cancel) and the resource (in-process wind-down ramp), and indicates the condition (if one is running). It differentiates from siblings like schedule_wind_down and wind_down_status, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when a wind-down is running and you want to stop it) and the conditionality is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'wind_down_status' for checking state or 'schedule_wind_down' for starting. There is no 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.