spotifyAuth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it specifies that credentials are stored in ~/.spotify-mcp-tokens.json along with session tokens, mentions automatic browser opening for OAuth, and outlines the flow for handling errors and manual authorization. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling beyond initial setup, or authentication state persistence.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured, numbered list for the workflow. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, such as guiding through authentication steps and noting storage details. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the storage note into the workflow or reducing redundancy in step explanations.

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 complexity of an authentication tool with multiple actions and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the authentication flow, storage behavior, and usage scenarios. However, it lacks information on output formats or error responses, which could hinder an AI agent's ability to handle post-invocation logic effectively.

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 minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mainly by contextualizing 'accion' values within the recommended workflow (e.g., 'verificar=comprobar estado (USAR PRIMERO)'). This aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 the tool manages Spotify authentication, which is a clear purpose, but it's somewhat vague about the specific actions. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this authentication tool from sibling tools like spotifyInfo, spotifyLibrary, or spotifyPlayer, which likely perform different functions after authentication. The description focuses on workflow rather than a concise statement of what the tool does.

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 explicit, step-by-step guidance on when to use different actions based on scenarios (e.g., if credentials aren't configured, use 'configurar'; after configuring, use 'ejecutar'; if manual authorization is needed, use 'urlAuth'). It includes alternatives and prerequisites, such as obtaining credentials from Spotify Developer Dashboard, making it highly actionable for an AI agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.