am_show_playlistView the tracks in any Apple Music playlist by providing its name or ID. Resolve unknown playlists by listing playlists first.
Show the tracks in one playlist selected by name or ID. Use am_list_playlists first when the exact playlist is unknown. / 中文：查看某个歌单的曲目列表。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playlist | Yes | 歌单名或 p.xxxx 形式的 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the selection-by-name-or-ID behavior, which is useful, but does not disclose return format or pagination. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
One concise sentence with a clear verb and resource, plus a helpful usage pointer. The Chinese translation is redundant but does not harm. Every element earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format, but the output schema is absent and the tool is simple enough that an agent can infer the result from the title and description.
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 the single parameter. The description adds that the parameter can be a name or p.xxxx ID, which matches the schema's description. Baseline 3 is correct when 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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('tracks in one playlist'), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting selection by name or ID. It clearly identifies what the tool does and is not a tautology.
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 explicitly advises using am_list_playlists first when the exact playlist is unknown, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for the simple use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.