Retrieve the follower count for a specific Spotify playlist, with an option to include the owner's public profile.
Get follower count for a playlist, optionally including public owner profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playlist_id | Yes | Playlist ID | |
| response_format | No | 'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object | concise |
| include_profiles | No | If true, fetch the owner public profile |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Input schema / properties / response_formatAdded value: +{
+ "default": "concise",
+ "description": "'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object",
+ "enum": [
+ "concise",
+ "detailed",
+ "json"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.26.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation and notes the 'public' caveat on owner profiles, but does not disclose response shape, error behavior, auth needs, or what happens when profile inclusion is unavailable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and the optional profile behavior is included without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with three well-documented parameters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks sibling routing and deeper behavioral detail, but nothing essential to calling the tool is missing.
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 all parameters. The description adds slight clarity by linking include_profiles to the owner profile, but does not materially expand beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('playlist'), and metric ('follower count'), and mentions the optional profile inclusion. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_playlist, get_playlist_items, or check_playlist_following.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_playlist or check_playlist_following. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.