Checks whether a Spotify URI, URL, or bare ID is valid by testing the URI grammar and 22-character base62 ID rule, then returns a field-by-field validity report.
Validate a Spotify reference against the URI grammar and 22-char base62 ID rule locally, returning a field-by-field validity report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | Spotify URI, URL, or bare ID to validate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.26.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that validation happens locally, applies specific grammar/ID rules, and returns a structured validity report. It doesn't mention edge-case handling or whether invalid input ever errors, but the disclosed behavior is substantial for a validation-only tool.
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 written sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most decision-relevant details: local execution, validation rules, and report shape. No filler or 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?
For a simple one-parameter utility, the description is largely complete: it says what is validated, how it is validated, where it runs, and what is returned. The lack of an output schema makes the absence of exact report-field details a minor gap, but not a blocking one.
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?
The schema already covers the single parameter with 100% description coverage, specifying that it accepts a URI, URL, or bare ID. The description adds 'Spotify reference' but does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 ('Validate'), names the resource ('Spotify reference'), and specifies the exact rules ('URI grammar and 22-char base62 ID rule'). The phrase 'returning a field-by-field validity report' distinguishes it from nearby boolean-returning validators like is_valid_spotify_uri.
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 description gives clear usage context: this is the local validation tool that produces a detailed field-by-field report. It implicitly tells an agent when to choose it over a simpler boolean check, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.