Generate a report of playlist contributors, showing who added each track, addition counts, first and last timestamps, and the most active members.
Report who added what to a playlist (counts + first/last timestamps, most-active)
| 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 |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the safety and behavior burden. 'Report' implies a read-only analysis, and the listed fields (counts, timestamps, most-active) clarify the output shape, but it doesn't explicitly state non-mutation, collaboration prerequisites, or empty-response 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the operation, then packs the output dimensions. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.
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?
No output schema, so the description must convey return values; it does convey aggregated counts, first/last timestamps, and most-active user. For a low-complexity read-only report with two fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete, though error or prerequisite behavior is not mentioned.
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 baseline is 3; playlist_id and response_format are already documented in the schema. The description adds domain context but no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 identifies a specific operation ('who added what to a playlist') and names the aggregated dimensions (counts, first/last timestamps, most-active), so an agent understands the resource and output. It doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like get_playlist_added_dates or collab_density_report, so not a 5.
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?
It implies when to call the tool (when a playlist collaboration breakdown is needed) but gives no explicit alternatives or exclusions. With siblings such as playlist_collab_toggle, collab_density_report, and get_playlist_added_dates nearby, some routing guidance would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.