Need a user's top tracks? Retrieve them for short-term (4 weeks), medium-term (6 months), or long-term (years) periods.
Get the user's most-listened-to tracks. time_range: short_term (~4 weeks), medium_term (~6 months, default), or long_term (years).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| time_range | No | medium_term |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and the time_range values, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a tool that simply retrieves data, this is a minimal disclosure and leaves the agent without important behavioral context.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by a compact explanation of the key parameter. There is no fluff, and the time_range details are relevant and necessary. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the parameter explanation.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (which covers return format), the description covers the main nuance: the time_range values. The limit parameter is standard and self-explanatory. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it omits any mention of default values or edge cases like empty responses.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the time_range parameter with three explicit values and their meanings, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the limit parameter at all, although limit is self-explanatory. The description partially covers parameter semantics but not fully.
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 clearly states the function: 'Get the user's most-listened-to tracks.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like top_artists or recently_played. The phrase 'most-listened-to' precisely defines the intent.
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 usage context by explaining the time_range parameter, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like top_artists or recently_played. The guidance is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.