save_tracksSave tracks to your Spotify library by passing their IDs or URIs. Keep liked songs accessible in your collection.
Save (like) tracks to the user's library.
Args:
track_ids: Track IDs or URIs (up to 50)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a limit of 50 track_ids, which is beyond the annotations. It restates the write nature, which is already conveyed by readOnlyHint=false, and the idempotent nature is covered by idempotentHint=true. No additional behavioral traits such as side effects or error conditions are disclosed, so the description adds only marginal value beyond annotations.
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 description is brief and front-loaded, stating the action first and then documenting the parameter in a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous content.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description supplies the necessary parameter semantics and limit, so an agent can invoke it correctly. It does not cover all possible context (e.g., auth scopes), but this is acceptable given the low complexity and existing structured data.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that track_ids accepts Track IDs or URIs and caps at 50. This provides meaning beyond the raw array-of-strings schema, though it could elaborate on ID vs URI formats.
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 clearly identifies the action 'Save (like)' and the target 'tracks to the user's library', distinguishing it from siblings like add_tracks_to_playlist (which adds to a playlist) and remove_saved_tracks (which removes from the library).
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?
The description implies usage when the user wants to persist tracks in their library, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as check_saved_tracks or add_tracks_to_playlist. This leaves the agent to infer the correct context from the action name and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.