Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

playlist_reverse

Reverse the order of tracks in a Spotify playlist in one atomic replace, with an optional dry run to preview changes.

Instructions

Reverse a playlist in one atomic replace. Quota: GET all + PUT/POST.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it
playlist_idYesPlaylist ID, spotify:playlist: URI, or URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.31.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / playlist_id / description
      Added value: +"Playlist ID, spotify:playlist: URI, or URL"
  2. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing that the reversal happens via a single atomic replace and that the cost is GET all + PUT/POST. It is consistent with the non-destructive annotation (reordering, not deleting) and adds quota/atomicity context the annotation does not carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two very short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the cost/quota note. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple mutation with a 100%-covered two-param schema and no output schema, the description covers action, atomicity, and cost. It omits permission requirements and return behavior, but these are marginal for a tool this simple.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both playlist_id and dry_run are fully documented in the schema, including the preview semantics of dry_run. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Reverse a playlist") plus the mechanism ("in one atomic replace"). It clearly distinguishes a reversal from siblings like playlist_sort or playlist_shuffle, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is stated. The description only implies usage from the verb itself and gives a quota cost note, which is not usage guidance. An agent must infer that playlist_sort or playlist_shuffle are not substitutes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools