netease_playlist_get_songsFetch all songs from a playlist you own by supplying its playlist ID. Returns each track's ID, name, artist, and album.
读取指定歌单（必须是当前账号拥有的）中的所有歌曲信息，包括歌曲ID、名称、歌手、专辑等。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回歌曲数量上限，默认为100 | |
| playlistId | Yes | 歌单 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond annotations by disclosing the ownership requirement, which is an access/auth condition, and by summarizing the returned fields. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but these are less critical for a simple read 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states operation, object, constraint, and output in compact form. No waste.
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 read-only tool with 2 params and annotations covering safety, the description covers scope, ownership requirement, and output fields. It lacks an explicit note on how pagination/limit works in practice, but the schema documents the limit, so the definition is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both playlistId and limit are already documented. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema; it focuses on the output content, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('读取') and resource ('指定歌单'), and clearly states it returns song information including ID, name, artist, and album. The ownership constraint ('必须是当前账号拥有的') helps differentiate it from playlist-level or song-detail tools.
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?
It explicitly states the prerequisite that the playlist must be owned by the current account, which is clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition is enough to route an agent correctly for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.