List saved playback scenes from the local sidecar to review or restore your custom Spotify audio presets. Optionally choose concise, detailed, or JSON output.
List saved playback scenes from the local sidecar
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data source 'local sidecar' which is useful context, but it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any side effects. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, and the added context is minimal but not contradictory.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is zero wasted wording, and it efficiently communicates the core function.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It tells the agent what it does and where data comes from. However, it doesn't mention that it only lists scenes from the local sidecar as opposed to elsewhere, but that is already implicit. The lack of return format details is acceptable given no output schema, and the annotations cover safety.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter response_format with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no additional meaning. 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List saved playback scenes from the local sidecar'. It is specific about what it does and where the data comes from. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like apply_scene or delete_scene, so the agent must infer that this is purely a listing operation.
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. For example, the description doesn't mention that apply_scene is for applying a scene, or that scene_sampler_search might be used for searching. The agent is left to infer the tool's place in the workflow without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.