spotify-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context about 'bridge artists connecting different parts of the network' at depth 2, but fails to disclose safety profile (read-only vs write), auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first establishes core function; the second front-loads the key value proposition (bridge artists at depth 2). Every word 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description appropriately avoids detailing return values. However, with zero schema descriptions for parameters and no annotations, the tool would benefit from explicit parameter documentation (e.g., Spotify ID format for artist_id) to be fully complete.

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 implicitly documents the depth parameter by explaining the significance of 'Depth 2', but does not explicitly describe the artist_id parameter or note that depth defaults to 1. Partial compensation for the schema 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?

States a specific action ('Map') and resource ('artist's network of related artists'). The 'bridge artists' concept distinguishes it from the sibling tool spotify_related_artists, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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?

Mentions 'Depth 2' implying different use cases for different depth values, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like spotify_related_artists or spotify_discover_by_artist, and no prerequisites.

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