Audit a Spotify playlist to identify unavailable tracks, local files, duplicates, and empty sections.
Audit a playlist for unavailable, local, duplicate, and empty issues (read-only)
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly promises no side effects via '(read-only)' and tells the agent exactly what kinds of issues it inspects. It does not detail output structure or edge cases, but the core behavioral trait is covered.
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 tightly worded sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the audited categories and the read-only guarantee. Every word earns its place with no 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?
The description plus fully documented schema provides enough to invoke the tool: a required playlist_id, an optional response_format enum, and a clear reporting mandate. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the response_format descriptions, though a bit more detail on what 'issues' contains would make it complete.
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 both playlist_id and response_format are already explained in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline for fully documented parameters.
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 ('Audit') with a clear resource ('a playlist') and enumerates the exact issue categories checked: unavailable, local, duplicate, and empty. The parenthetical '(read-only)' further distinguishes it from mutation-heavy playlist tools.
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 read-only qualifier implies this is for diagnostics rather than cleanup or fixes, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives such as remove_unavailable_playlist_items, dedupe_playlist_plan, or find_duplicates_in_playlist. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.