Retrieve the current playback queue to see upcoming tracks.
Get the current playback queue.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_queue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get the current playback queue' without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, or that it is a read-only operation. The agent cannot infer safety or prerequisites.
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 a single sentence (6 words) that is perfectly front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what constitutes the 'queue' (e.g., upcoming items vs. history) or any pagination, leaving room for ambiguity. It is complete enough for a simple tool but lacks depth compared to better examples.
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?
Since there are no parameters, schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter meaning but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already covers everything. The description's mention of 'current' aligns with the tool name but provides no extra semantic value.
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 'Get the current playback queue.' clearly identifies the specific verb (Get) and resource (current playback queue). It distinguishes from siblings like get_currently_playing (current track) and get_playback_state (play/pause status) by naming a distinct resource.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_currently_playing or get_playback_state. The description does not differentiate usage context or specify exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.