Retrieve catalog details for an album's tracks using its Spotify ID or URI. Supports pagination with limit and offset to control how many tracks are returned.
Get Spotify catalog information for an album's tracks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The Spotify ID or URI for the album | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of tracks to return (1-50) | |
| offset | No | The index of the first track to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Get' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior (beyond what the schema hints at with limit/offset). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format, which are needed for full contextual understanding. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it does not.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (id, limit, offset) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of the 'id' (Spotify ID or URI) or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Spotify catalog information for an album's tracks'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_album' or 'get_playlist_tracks', which handle related but distinct resources, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an album ID, or compare it to siblings like 'get_album' (which might include track info) or 'get_playlist_tracks', leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.