Fetch all tracks in a playlist by station ID and playlist ID. Returns unique tracks, not necessarily in playlist order.
Get all tracks for a playlist (tracks are unique and not necessarily in playlist order)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| station_id | Yes | The station ID | |
| playlist_id | Yes | The playlist 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that tracks are unique and unordered, which is a useful behavioral trait, but says nothing about mutation safety, whether it's read-only, error conditions, or pagination for a potentially large track list.
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 efficient sentence with the key behavioral detail (uniqueness, order) included. No wasted words, though slightly terse for a tool with zero annotations.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about behavior—is it read-only, can it fail, how large can results be, what's the return shape? The one useful behavioral note is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety or output metadata.
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 station_id and playlist_id are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Get) and resource (tracks for a playlist), clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_playlist (metadata) and get_tracks_by_ids (tracks by ID). The parenthetical clarifies scope.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description—you use it when you need a playlist's tracks—but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.