Retrieve tempo, energy, and danceability metrics for any Spotify track to understand its musical profile. Spotify may restrict this endpoint for newer apps, returning an error.
Audio features (tempo/energy/danceability) for a track (Spotify has restricted this endpoint for newer apps; may return an explanatory error).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: Spotify has restricted the endpoint for newer apps and it may return an explanatory error. That is genuinely useful operational context. However, it omits read-only nature, auth/scope requirements, and rate limits.
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 tight sentence with the returned fields and the caveat front-loaded in parentheses. Every clause earns its place; only the absent parameter format is a gap.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the value and the deprecation caveat reasonably well. The unresolved input format for 'track' and the absence of any return-shape hint leave it only minimally 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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'track' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says 'for a track' but never clarifies whether the value is an ID, URI, or name, which is a real ambiguity for the agent. It falls well short of compensating for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific resource (audio features) and enumerates the returned attributes (tempo/energy/danceability) for a track. No sibling tool covers this ground, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get', but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus recommendations, top_tracks, or other track-metadata tools, and no prerequisites stated. The only contextual note is about endpoint restriction, not about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.