Remove one or more tracks from a Spotify playlist by providing the playlist ID and track URIs. Use optional positions to delete specific track occurrences.
Remove one or more tracks from a playlist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The Spotify ID or URI of the playlist | |
| tracks | Yes | Array of objects containing Spotify track URIs to remove | |
| snapshot_id | No | Optional. The playlist's snapshot ID |
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 full burden. It states the tool performs a removal operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (it likely is), what permissions are required, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the playlist structure after removal. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects. Given the complexity of removing tracks from a playlist, more context is needed for safe and 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, format examples, or edge cases. 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 action ('Remove') and resource ('tracks from a playlist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_playlist' which might also handle track removal, nor does it specify if this is a batch operation versus single-track removal.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'modify_playlist' that might overlap in functionality, the description offers no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or when this specific tool is preferred over others for track removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.