Retrieve details for a Spotify playlist by ID or URI, including optional market filtering, to view its tracks and metadata.
Get a playlist owned by a Spotify user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The Spotify ID or URI of the playlist | |
| market | No | Optional. An ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code |
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 'Get a playlist' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the format of the return data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., playlist details, tracks, or metadata), potential limitations, or error conditions. For a tool in a rich API context with siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'id' and 'market'. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add extra value.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('a playlist owned by a Spotify user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_playlist_items' or 'get_playlist_tracks', which might retrieve related but different data, leaving some ambiguity in scope.
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, such as 'get_current_user_playlists' for listing playlists or 'get_playlist_items' for detailed track information. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.