Exclude specified track IDs from matching and M3U playlist generation, with an optional reason. Use to keep unwanted tracks out of organized music workflows.
Leave these tracks out of matching and the M3U.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | skipped by user | |
| track_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state non-destructively. The description usefully adds the consequence (exclusion from matching and M3U generation), but says nothing about persistence, undo, or whether the skip is scoped to this run or permanent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to conveying the tool's effect. Ideal size for a simple two-parameter action.
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?
For a mutating tool with 0% schema coverage, an undocumented 'reason' parameter, and no output schema, the one-line description is too thin. It should at minimum clarify what the skip affects and what happens to the excluded tracks.
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% for two parameters, and the description only obliquely references track_ids via 'these tracks'. The 'reason' parameter (defaulting to 'skipped by user') is never mentioned, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific action (exclude tracks) and its concrete effect (out of matching and the M3U), which is enough to tell it apart from curation siblings like approve_tracks or review_candidates. It lacks any explicit naming of alternatives, but the verb+resource+effect is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'leave these tracks out of matching and the M3U' suggests a curation step, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over review_candidates/approve_tracks or what prerequisites exist. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.