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 discloses key behavioral traits: results are returned in 'reverse chronological order' and capped at 'up to 50' items. However, it omits safety disclosure (read-only nature), rate limits, or auth requirements. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately does not detail return values.

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 that is appropriately front-loaded with the core action ('Get your recently played tracks'). The qualifying details (ordering and limit) follow without waste. 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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no nesting) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should have explicitly documented the limit parameter to be considered complete. As written, it leaves the parameter undocumented except for the implied maximum constraint.

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 succeeds by implying the maximum constraint ('up to 50'), which maps to the limit parameter's valid range. However, it fails to explicitly document the limit parameter, its default value of 20, or that it is optional, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the clear resource 'recently played tracks'. It distinguishes from siblings like spotify_now_playing (current track) and spotify_top_tracks (frequent tracks) by specifying 'recently played' and 'reverse chronological order'. The 'up to 50' constraint further 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?

The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs spotify_now_playing for current playback, or vs spotify_top_tracks for favorites). There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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