Add selected tracks to a Yandex Music playlist using track IDs and playlist kind; optionally insert them at the start. Use it to build or update playlists from searched or liked tracks.
Добавляет треки в мой плейлист. track_ids — id из других инструментов ("123:456" или "123").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| at_start | No | ||
| track_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of permissions, duplicate handling, or what the required 'kind' parameter controls. It corroborates rather than extends the 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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the id format follows. It is appropriately sized for such a small tool, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented required parameter.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, a required parameter ('kind') with no meaning anywhere, no usage guidance, and no behavioral context beyond the annotations leave the definition under-specified for correct invocation.
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 of explaining three parameters. It documents only track_ids, giving the id format ('123:456' or '123'), while the required 'kind' integer and the 'at_start' boolean remain completely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 and resource in Russian ('Добавляет треки в мой плейлист' — adds tracks to my playlist), which clearly distinguishes it from remove_tracks_from_playlist. It scopes to 'my' playlists, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state the boundary against like_tracks or create_playlist.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The only implied usage is 'my playlist', and nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over remove_tracks_from_playlist, like_tracks, or create_playlist. The agent must infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.