Pause the currently playing music on Spotify. Stop audio playback with a single command.
Pause the current audio playback on Spotify.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "pause_playback"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it silently fails if no device is active, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the access_token parameter.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, given the simplicity, it could include additional useful information without becoming verbose.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter lacking description, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not address error handling, prerequisites (e.g., must have an active session), or expected return behavior.
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?
The description does not mention the access_token parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. Thus it adds no meaning beyond the parameter's existence in the schema.
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 'Pause the current audio playback on Spotify' clearly states the verb 'Pause' and the specific resource 'current audio playback on Spotify', distinguishing it from sibling tools like resume_playback or skip_next.
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 when the user wants to stop active playback, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternatives like resume_playback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.