Stop an active wind-down ramp on Spotify when it's no longer needed. Specify a device to cancel only that device's wind-down, restoring normal playback.
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.
v1.26.1Does 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 state that the tool targets an in-process ramp and is conditional, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., current volume behavior) or what happens if no wind-down is running.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single tight sentence with no filler. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and the conditional scope is stated compactly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters and full schema descriptions, but it has no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the core action and condition but does not clarify no-op behavior, side effects, or result shape beyond the response_format enum.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the response_format enum. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable under the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('in-process wind-down ramp'), and adds a meaningful condition ('if one is running'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling schedule_wind_down and volume-related tools without requiring schema inspection.
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 phrase 'if one is running' gives a clear context condition for when the tool applies, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like schedule_wind_down or explain what happens when no ramp is active. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.