Spotify MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as getNowPlaying for current track info and getQueue for queue details, but some overlap exists: addToQueue and playMusic both handle playback initiation, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify that addToQueue adds to queue without playing, while playMusic starts playback, mitigating ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear actions like get, add, create, and skip, using camelCase throughout. Minor deviations include saveOrRemoveAlbumForUser, which is more verbose, and checkUsersSavedAlbums, which uses 'check' instead of 'get', but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive Spotify integration covering playback, library management, playlists, and search. It includes essential operations without being overly bloated, though it borders on feeling heavy compared to simpler servers.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for Spotify's core domain: playback control (play, pause, skip, queue), library management (save/remove albums, get saved tracks), playlist operations (create, add tracks, get tracks), and search. No obvious gaps exist; agents can perform full workflows from discovery to playback and organization.
Average 3.1/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Adds') but does not specify whether this requires an active device, affects current playback, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resources without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects) or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'uri' overrides 'type' and 'id', 'type' has an enum). The description does not add any meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Adds') and the resources ('track, album, artist or playlist') with the destination ('to the playback queue'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'playMusic' or 'getQueue', which could involve similar concepts but serve different functions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'playMusic' for immediate playback or 'getQueue' for viewing the queue. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., active playback) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear based solely on the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds tracks, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions (e.g., user must own or follow the playlist), rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., partial additions). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter mapping.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (playlistId, trackIds, position). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining track ID formats or position behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add tracks') and target resource ('to a Spotify playlist'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'addToQueue' or 'playMusic', which also involve adding or playing tracks in different contexts.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'addToQueue' (for immediate playback) or 'createPlaylist' (for making new playlists). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing playlist, or exclusions, like not being suitable for modifying track order beyond insertion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean array, status codes). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (checking saved albums), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, response format, or error conditions, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'albumIds' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of Spotify album IDs or the significance of the max 20 limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'albums saved in the user's "Your Music" library', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getUsersSavedTracks' or 'saveOrRemoveAlbumForUser', which handle similar resources but different operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'checkUsersSavedAlbums' instead of 'getUsersSavedTracks' or 'saveOrRemoveAlbumForUser', nor does it specify prerequisites like user authentication or context for checking saved albums.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the playlist is created for the current user or another user, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a playlist ID), authentication requirements, or error conditions. Given the complexity of creating a resource in an external API, more context is needed.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new playlist on Spotify'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'getMyPlaylists' or 'addTracksToPlaylist' beyond the obvious creation vs. retrieval distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'addTracksToPlaylist' for modifying existing playlists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what 'detailed information' includes. The mention of 'one or more albums' hints at batch capability, but this is already covered by 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get detailed information', 'about one or more albums', 'by their Spotify IDs') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., track list, release date), authentication requirements, error handling, or how results are structured, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
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%, with the schema fully documenting the 'albumIds' parameter as accepting a string or array (max 20 items). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating 'one or more albums by their Spotify IDs' without explaining ID format or usage nuances, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about one or more albums by their Spotify IDs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'checkUsersSavedAlbums' or 'getAlbumTracks', which also involve album data but serve different purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, compare to similar tools (e.g., 'searchSpotify' for finding albums by name, 'checkUsersSavedAlbums' for saved status), or specify use cases like retrieving metadata for known IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list of tracks but omits critical details: whether it's paginated (implied by 'offset' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of tracks in a Spotify playlist'). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a read operation with pagination (implied by parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication, rate limits, return format, error cases, and how pagination works. For a tool that interacts with an external API like Spotify, this omission could lead to incorrect usage by an agent.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'playlistId', 'limit', and 'offset'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain playlist ID format or pagination behavior). This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra detail in the description.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a list of') and resource ('tracks in a Spotify playlist'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getAlbumTracks' by specifying playlist tracks rather than album tracks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'getQueue' or 'getRecentlyPlayed', which also retrieve track lists, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a playlist ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'getAlbumTracks' or 'getQueue'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Start playing' but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active Spotify session or device), potential side effects (e.g., interrupts current playback), or limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a playback tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., interrupts current playback, requires device selection), error conditions, or what the tool returns. This makes it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'uri' and 'type/id' or typical usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Start playing') and the resource ('a Spotify track, album, artist, or playlist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resumePlayback' or 'addToQueue', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify if this should be used for initial playback versus resuming, or how it differs from 'resumePlayback' or 'addToQueue'. This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection by an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'on the active device' which adds some context about scope, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., no active device), or what happens if playback is already resumed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators), error handling, or important behavioral constraints. The context signals indicate this is a simple tool, but the description should still address basic operational aspects.
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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'deviceId' with its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Resume') and target ('Spotify playback on the active device'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pausePlayback' or 'playMusic', which would require 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playMusic' or 'pausePlayback', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active device or playback session. It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search functionality but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of search results. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Search') and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, result formatting, error handling, and usage context relative to siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and operational context to be fully helpful for an AI agent.
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?
The description mentions searching for 'tracks, albums, artists, or playlists', which aligns with the 'type' parameter's enum values, adding some context. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all parameters (query, type, limit), so the description does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal additional value.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('tracks, albums, artists, or playlists on Spotify'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this search function from potential sibling tools like 'getAlbums' or 'getMyPlaylists', which might also retrieve similar content but through different mechanisms.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'getAlbums' (which might fetch specific albums without search) or 'getMyPlaylists' (which retrieves user-specific playlists). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no track is playing. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving real-time playback data) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., track details, playback state), error handling, or dependencies like active playback, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information about') and the resource ('currently playing track on Spotify'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getQueue' or 'getRecentlyPlayed', which also retrieve playback information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getQueue' or 'getRecentlyPlayed', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring active playback. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get a list' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'recently' means temporally. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks context about authentication, temporal scope of 'recently,' and differentiation from sibling tools, which would be helpful given the tool's purpose.
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%, with the single parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a list') and resource ('recently played tracks on Spotify'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getQueue' or 'getNowPlaying' that also retrieve track information, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'getQueue' (for queued tracks) and 'getNowPlaying' (for current track), there's no indication of when 'recently played' is appropriate versus these other retrieval options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or pagination behavior. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving a list with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, but it at least specifies the resource clearly, making it minimally adequate.
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 the input schema fully documents the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining default values or usage context, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps, so it meets the baseline.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of tracks saved in the user's "Liked Songs" library', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getRecentlyPlayed' or 'getPlaylistTracks', which also retrieve tracks but from different sources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as comparing to 'getRecentlyPlayed' for recent tracks or 'getPlaylistTracks' for playlist content, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't mention authentication requirements (likely needed for Spotify API), rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if the user has no playlists. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the user context and platform.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving user-specific data from an external API), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling, response format, or limitations like pagination, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in real-world scenarios.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of the current user's playlists on Spotify'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPlaylistTracks' or 'getQueue', which also retrieve playlist-related data but with different scopes or contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'current user's playlists', suggesting it's for personal playlist retrieval. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getPlaylistTracks' (which gets tracks within a playlist) or 'createPlaylist' (for creating new ones), leaving the agent to infer context without clear exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions needed, effects on queue/playback state, error conditions (e.g., no previous track), or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (skip action), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical behavioral context like side effects, error handling, and response details, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 the schema fully documents the single parameter (deviceId). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as when deviceId is required or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Skip to the previous track') and resource ('current Spotify playback queue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like skipToNext (next track) and pausePlayback/resumePlayback (playback control). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active playback), exclusions (e.g., no queue), or comparisons to siblings like skipToNext. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support' which is useful, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., track objects with metadata). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get tracks from a specific album') and adds the key behavioral feature ('with pagination support'). There's zero wasted language, and every word earns its place in helping understand the tool's function.
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 read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It covers the core purpose and pagination behavior, but lacks details about authentication, rate limits, error handling, and return format. Given the complexity (moderate) and absence of annotations/output schema, it should do more to compensate for these 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 the schema fully documents all three parameters (albumId, limit, offset) with their types, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('tracks from a specific album'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getAlbums' (which lists albums) and 'getPlaylistTracks' (which gets tracks from playlists). However, it doesn't explicitly mention Spotify, which could help differentiate from other music services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing album tracks with pagination, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'getAlbums' (for album metadata) or 'searchSpotify' (for broader searches). It mentions pagination support, which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool returns, not behavioral traits like whether it requires active playback, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. It's a basic functional description without operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and immediately specifies the scope. Perfectly sized for this simple tool.
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 simple read operation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context about authentication requirements, whether playback must be active, and what happens when there's no queue. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral disclosure would be helpful.
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 the schema already fully documents the 'limit' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (no additional context about default behavior when limit isn't specified, or how the limit applies to queue items).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get a list') and the exact resources ('currently playing track and the next items in your Spotify queue'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getNowPlaying' (which only shows current track) and 'getRecentlyPlayed' (historical data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you want to see upcoming queue items), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'getNowPlaying' for just current track or 'getRecentlyPlayed' for history. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires active playback, what happens if no next track exists, or if it affects the queue. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('skip to the next track') and context ('in the current Spotify playback queue'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what happens after skipping. For a tool that modifies playback state, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter ('deviceId'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there is only one optional parameter, the tool's purpose remains clear without extra semantics, justifying a score above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('skip to the next track') and the context ('in the current Spotify playback queue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'skipToPrevious' (which goes backward) and 'pausePlayback' (which stops). It uses specific verbs and resources without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 advance playback, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'skipToPrevious' for going back, 'playMusic' for starting playback). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the action, it doesn't mention required permissions, whether this affects other devices, error conditions, or what happens if no active device exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one optional parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details like error handling or side effects, which are important for a playback control tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'deviceId' is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately met.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Pause') and resource ('Spotify playback on the active device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'playMusic' and 'resumePlayback'. It precisely communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when playback needs to be paused, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resumePlayback' or 'skipToNext'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action (save/remove) but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether changes are permanent, or what happens if album IDs are invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are important for a tool that modifies user data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but with zero parameters left undocumented, the baseline is high. A score of 4 reflects that the description doesn't compensate for any gaps (since there are none), but also doesn't add extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('save or remove'), the resource ('albums'), and the target location ("user's 'Your Music' library"). It precisely distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'checkUsersSavedAlbums' (which only checks) or 'addTracksToPlaylist' (which targets playlists rather than the user's library).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for managing albums in the user's personal library, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'addTracksToPlaylist' or 'createPlaylist'. It provides basic context (managing 'Your Music' library) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spotify-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/makesh-kumar/spotify-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/makesh-kumar/spotify-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spotify-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/makesh-kumar/spotify-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/makesh-kumar/spotify-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/makesh-kumar/spotify-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server