spotify-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context about supported field filters, but omits other important traits like rate limits, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first establishes core purpose and the second immediately adds value with filter syntax guidance, demonstrating excellent front-loading.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. However, with zero schema description coverage, the description should ideally have documented all three parameters rather than just the query syntax.

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 adds crucial semantic meaning to the 'query' parameter by explaining field filter syntax, but fails to document the 'type' or 'limit' parameters at all.

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 tool searches Spotify for tracks, artists, albums, or playlists using the specific verb 'Search'. While it effectively distinguishes from 'get' siblings by function, it could more explicitly differentiate from similar 'find' tools like spotify_find_song.

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 implicit usage guidance by documenting field filter syntax (artist:, genre:, year:), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like spotify_get_track (which requires IDs) or spotify_find_song.

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