Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

undo_last_mutation

Destructive

Undo the most recent reversible Spotify mutation via receipt FIFO: adds/saves are removed, removals are re-added. Preview by default; set dry_run:false to execute with confirmation.

Instructions

Undo the most recent reversible mutation (receipt FIFO). Same inversion semantics as undo_mutation: add/save → remove, removal → re-add. Executing needs confirmation and is refused when the client cannot prompt (SPOTIFY_MCP_CONFIRM=never bypasses).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview only, and the default: pass dry_run: false to execute the rollback.
response_formatNo'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API objectconcise

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run / default
      Added value: +true
    • changedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description
      Previous value: -"Preview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it"New value: +"Preview only, and the default: pass dry_run: false to execute the rollback."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.31.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.28.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "concise",
+  "description": "'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object",
+  "enum": [
+    "concise",
+    "detailed",
+    "json"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: confirmation is required to execute, execution is refused when the client can't prompt, SPOTIFY_MCP_CONFIRM=never bypasses that gate, and the exact inversion mapping (add/save → remove, removal → re-add). This is exactly the beyond-annotation disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, no filler: purpose and ordering first, semantic equivalence second, execution gating third. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema and only destructiveHint in annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it covers ordering, inversion semantics, and the confirmation/refusal behavior that determines whether the call can even succeed. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 dry_run and response_format are fully documented, including the default of dry_run=true). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Undo the most recent reversible mutation') and pins the scope with 'receipt FIFO'. It explicitly names the sibling undo_mutation as the related-but-different operation, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The FIFO scope makes the selection condition clear: use this for the latest mutation, and it alludes to undo_mutation for targeted rollback via 'Same inversion semantics as undo_mutation'. It stops short of an explicit 'use undo_mutation instead when you know the receipt id' sentence, so no exclusion list, but the context is strong.

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