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 mentions the 'up to 20' limit constraint but fails to disclose safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), authentication requirements, error behaviors, or rate limiting.

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. Information is front-loaded and 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 has a single parameter and an output schema exists (covering return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero schema coverage and no annotations, it lacks necessary context about parameter semantics and behavioral traits that would make it 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% (only a title 'Artist Id' exists). The description references 'given artist' implying the artist_id parameter, but adds no semantic detail about expected format (Spotify URI vs. ID), where to obtain valid IDs, or validation 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 verb (Get), resource (artists), and scope (up to 20 similar to a given artist). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar discovery tools like 'spotify_discover_by_artist' or 'spotify_artist_network' in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'spotify_discover_by_artist' or 'spotify_artist_deep_dive'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow cues mentioned.

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