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. It successfully clarifies the three operational modes (specific track vs context vs resume), but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as what 'offset' represents, what happens when 'device_id' is omitted, or error conditions when no active device exists.

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, dense sentence that efficiently packs the three usage modes. While generally clear, it is arguably too concise given the complexity (4 parameters with zero schema documentation), forcing too much information into one sentence without breaking down the optional parameters.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it documents the content parameters (uri, context_uri) but ignores the control parameters (device_id, offset). Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the operational parameters require documentation that is missing here.

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 successfully explains 'uri' (track) and 'context_uri' (album/playlist) semantics, but completely omits 'device_id' (target device for playback) and 'offset' (position in context), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (start/resume playback) and the target resources (track URI, album/playlist context_uri). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'spotify_resume', which also handles resuming playback, creating potential ambiguity about which tool to use when simply resuming.

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?

The description implies usage patterns through the three input modes (track URI, context URI, or neither), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'spotify_add_to_queue' or 'spotify_resume'. No prerequisites (e.g., active device, premium requirements) are mentioned.

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