Retrieve a user's recently played tracks. Specify a limit from 1 to 50 to control the number of results, defaulting to 50.
Get user's recently played tracks.
Args:
limit: Number of tracks to return (1-50, default 50)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| access_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get user's recently played tracks' and documents the limit parameter. It doesn't disclose that this requires Spotify OAuth, that it returns the user's own listening history (not another user's), that results are ordered by play time, or that the endpoint may have restrictions. For a read operation with no annotations, this is a minimal disclosure.
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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is a bit redundant with the schema but is compact. It earns its place by adding the 1-50 range and default that the schema doesn't fully convey. No wasted words, though the format is slightly awkward for an LLM-facing description.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the return format, ordering, authentication requirements, or how this differs from get_user_top_items and get_user_saved_tracks. The access_token parameter is undocumented. An agent would struggle to know when to call this vs. other Spotify getters and what to expect back.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document the 'limit' parameter with range and default, which adds value beyond the schema's bare type/default. However, it completely ignores the 'access_token' parameter, which is in the schema but undocumented. With 2 params and only 1 explained, the description partially compensates but leaves a 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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get user's recently played tracks.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Spotify 'get_user_*' tools like get_user_saved_tracks or get_user_top_items. The name itself is also descriptive.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is Spotify-specific, doesn't note that it requires authentication, and doesn't distinguish it from get_user_top_items or get_user_saved_tracks. The context of siblings suggests it's one of many user-data getters, but the description provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.