Remove a playlist from your Spotify library without deleting it. Use the playlist ID to unfollow it while keeping the playlist available on Spotify.
Unfollow a playlist (removes it from your library, but the playlist still exists on Spotify)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playlistId | Yes | Spotify ID of the playlist to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious trait: this is a non-destructive unfollow, not a true deletion, so the playlist survives on Spotify. It does not mention idempotency, auth requirements, or what happens when the playlist is already unfollowed.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the actual operation, with the parenthetical immediately defusing the destructive connotation of the tool name. Nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the behavioral clarification is the main thing an agent needs, and it is present. Missing only auth/prerequisite context, which is minor given a dedicated auth-spotify sibling.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter playlistId is already documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does this work.
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 verb (unfollow) and resource (playlist), and crucially corrects the misleading 'delete' in the tool name by clarifying the playlist is not destroyed. An agent can distinguish this from update-playlist, create-playlist, and remove-tracks-from-playlist without opening any schema.
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 implied: use this to remove a playlist from the user's library while leaving it on Spotify. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite (e.g. authentication via auth-spotify), or statement of alternatives such as update-playlist for renaming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.