Retrieve the user's recently played Spotify tracks, optionally filtered by before/after timestamps and limited to 1-50 results.
Get the user's recently played tracks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Unix timestamp in ms. Returns tracks played after this time (optional) | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of tracks to return (1-50, default: 20) | |
| before | No | Unix timestamp in ms. Returns tracks played before this time (optional) |
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 behavioral burden and it does not deliver: it never says this is a read-only operation, that it requires user authorization, that it reflects a rolling time window, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a user-data read with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with no filler or repetition of the schema. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than tightness.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place behavioral and return-value context could live, and it supplies neither. An agent cannot tell from this definition what it receives back or under what auth/rate conditions the call succeeds.
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 after/before/limit fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail (e.g., that after/before and limit combine) beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Get') and resource ('recently played tracks') scoped to the user, which is clear on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from near-neighbor siblings such as get-current-playback or get-top-tracks, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing an authenticated user session. The agent gets a purpose but no routing guidance among the many playback/playlist siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.