follow_artistsFollow Spotify artists by ID or URI in batches of up to 50, adding them to the user's followed artists. Reauthorize with user-follow-modify if that scope is missing.
Follow artists. Requires user-follow-modify; reauthorize if it is missing.
Args:
artist_ids: Artist IDs or URIs (up to 50)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required OAuth scope and the reauthorization fallback if the scope is missing — information an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.
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?
The definition is short and front-loaded with the operation, then the auth requirement, then the parameter note. The opening 'Follow artists' mildly restates the tool name, but every other clause (scope, reauthorize, ID formats, cap) earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the auth prerequisite, input formats, and batch limit — essentially everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only edge-case behavior (partial failures, behavior for already-followed artists beyond the idempotent hint) is unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add meaning: 'Artist IDs or URIs' broadens the accepted input format beyond a bare array of strings, and 'up to 50' supplies a batch-size limit absent from the schema. It still does not say what happens on exceeding 50 or whether invalid IDs fail the whole call.
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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Follow artists') that maps directly to the tool name and is unambiguous against siblings like unfollow_artists and check_following_artists. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from those siblings, which keeps it from 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?
It states a concrete prerequisite ('Requires user-follow-modify; reauthorize if it is missing'), which tells the agent about an auth gate. However, it never says when to use this versus unfollow_artists (to remove) or check_following_artists (to verify), so the choice between siblings is left to inference from names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.