Remove a track you own from a laut.fm station by specifying the station ID and track ID, clearing it from the station's playlist.
Delete an own track from a station
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_id | Yes | The track ID to delete | |
| station_id | Yes | The station ID |
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' signals a destructive operation, but the description does not state whether it is irreversible, what permissions/ownership are required (the 'own' qualifier hints at an ownership rule but leaves it undefined), what happens to playlist references, or anything about failure modes.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb-resource structure and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly due to under-specification rather than discipline.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify irreversibility, ownership rules, and how it differs from delete_track_from_playlist. None of that is present, leaving the agent under-informed about a consequential operation.
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% (both track_id and station_id are documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about parameter format, valid ranges, or the relationship between station and track beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (track) with a scoping constraint ('own', 'from a station'), so the agent knows the general action. However, the sibling set contains a highly similar tool, delete_track_from_playlist, and the description does nothing to distinguish deleting a station-owned track from removing a track from a playlist. The ambiguous word 'own' is not clarified.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given the presence of delete_track_from_playlist, remove_track_tags, and update_track as nearby siblings, the lack of any disambiguation is a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.