Fetch tracks from a Spotify playlist by playlist ID, using optional limit and offset to control and page through the returned tracks.
Get the tracks in a playlist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tracks to return (1-50, default: 20) | |
| offset | No | The index of the first track to return (default: 0) | |
| playlistId | Yes | Spotify ID of the playlist |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about pagination behavior, authentication requirements (Spotify endpoints require auth), or what happens when the playlist is empty or the ID is invalid.
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 zero filler, which is appropriate for the operation. It is efficient but arguably too terse given the tool's pagination surface.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits any mention of paginated returns or auth needs, leaving gaps that structured fields do not cover.
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 100%, with limit, offset, and playlistId all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or ordering detail beyond what the schema already conveys.
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?
States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('tracks in a playlist'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like get-user-playlists, get-top-tracks, or search-spotify, which all retrieve track-like resources.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-user-playlists or search-spotify, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a playlist ID must be known beforehand). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.