MCP Claude Spotify

update-playlist

Modify a Spotify playlist's name, description, visibility, or collaborative setting using its Spotify ID.

Instructions

Update a playlist's name, description, public/private status, or collaborative setting

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "playlistId": "<playlistId>"
    },
    "name": "update-playlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name for the playlist (optional)
`public`	No	Whether the playlist should be public (optional)
`playlistId`	Yes	Spotify ID of the playlist
`description`	No	New description for the playlist (optional)
`collaborative`	No	Whether the playlist should be collaborative. Must set public to false first (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.7.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not state whether ownership/permissions are required, that unspecified fields are left unchanged, or that changes are reversible. It also omits that collaborative requires public=false, a constraint that only appears in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the update targets with zero filler. Slightly terse given the mutation risk, but appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus the fully-covered schema give the agent enough to call it, but omit ownership requirements, side effects, and the public/collaborative interaction detail. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the collaborative/public ordering constraint. The description echoes the same four field names without adding format or value semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('playlist') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, public/private, collaborative), so an agent can tell it apart from create-playlist and delete-playlist. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope, 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create-playlist for new playlists. The agent is left to infer that this only applies to existing playlists it owns.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.