Retrieve a paginated list of the user's Spotify playlists, with optional limit and offset controls.
Get a list of the user's playlists
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of playlists to return (1-50, default: 20) | |
| offset | No | The index of the first playlist to return (default: 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Maximum number of playlists to return (1-50, default: 20)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The index of the first playlist to return (default: 0)",
+ "type": "number"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read (no mutation verbs), but discloses nothing about auth requirements, whether it returns only the current user's playlists, pagination behavior, or how results are ordered.
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 with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to earn a 5.
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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It is missing ownership scope and auth context, but nothing in the schema is left unexplained.
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% (limit with range/default, offset with default), so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 ('a list of the user's playlists'), which is unambiguous against siblings like get-playlist-tracks or get-top-tracks. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those nearby siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-playlist-tracks or get-top-tracks, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. authentication, whose playlists). Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.