spotify-mcp

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 but fails to indicate this is a read-only operation, mention required OAuth scopes (e.g., user-read-private), or describe the boolean array return format despite the existence of an output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, it may be overly terse—prioritizing brevity over necessary explanatory detail.

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 single-parameter read operation with an existing output schema, the description covers the basic intent but remains minimal. The lack of input schema documentation creates a gap that the description fails to fill, leaving parameter semantics under-specified.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'user_ids' parameter. While the description mentions 'specific Spotify users'—implying the parameter contains Spotify user IDs—it does not clarify whether these should be Spotify URIs, usernames, or numeric IDs, nor does it mention array size limits or formatting constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Check') and resource ('Spotify users'), making the tool's function immediately apparent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'spotify_check_following_artists', relying solely on the tool name to distinguish the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'spotify_get_followed_artists' (which retrieves the full list) versus checking specific IDs. There are no prerequisites, rate limit warnings, or contextual recommendations provided.

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