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. It reveals the algorithmic approach (traversing related artists' recent albums) and the result set size constraint (1-50), but fails to declare safety properties (read-only vs destructive), caching behavior, or error conditions. It implies a read operation through 'Discover' but does not explicitly confirm it.

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 single-sentence description is information-dense and front-loaded with the key mechanism. However, the placement of '(1-50)' at the end creates slight ambiguity regarding whether it refers to the limit parameter, the number of albums checked, or the number of related artists processed.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. For a tool with only two parameters and no annotations, the description provides the minimum viable context regarding the discovery mechanism, though it could benefit from explicit safety declarations or authentication reminders given the lack of annotation coverage.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially does so by indicating the '1-50' range (mapping to the limit parameter) and implying that 'an artist' refers to the artist_id parameter. However, it does not specify the expected format for artist_id (e.g., Spotify URI vs. base-62 ID) or explicitly name the parameters, leaving some ambiguity despite the simple schema.

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 ('Discover tracks'), the source data ('an artist's related artists' recent albums'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like spotify_discover_by_mood or spotify_related_artists through its specific mechanism. However, it uses the slightly vague verb 'Discover' rather than 'Retrieve' or 'Fetch', and doesn't explicitly state that it returns track objects.

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 tool versus alternatives like spotify_discover_by_mood, spotify_related_artists, or spotify_artist_deep_dive. The description lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Spotify artist_id) or exclusions.

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