Pause playback on the active Spotify device, stopping the current track immediately.
Pause playback on the active device
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | Preview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it | |
| device_id | No | Target device ID | |
| response_format | No | 'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object | concise |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Input schema / properties / dry_runAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Preview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.26.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput 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"
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It names the action and scope but does not say what happens if no device is active, whether pausing is idempotent, or how dry_run and response_format affect the operation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Despite low tool complexity, the description is incomplete for safe selection and invocation. It lacks guidance about alternative tools, device targeting semantics, failure behavior, and expected output, leaving the agent to infer important context from the schema and sibling list.
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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond loosely implying that 'active device' is the default target, which relates to device_id but is never made explicit.
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 ('pause') and a clear resource ('playback on the active device'). It is understandable and distinguishable from siblings like 'play' or 'skip_next', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related 'pause_everywhere'.
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?
No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'pause_everywhere' or 'mute'. There is no mention of prerequisites like requiring an active device, nor context for choosing between device_id and the active device.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.