Retrieve a Spotify artist's metadata and follower count by artist ID and bearer token, enabling artist profile lookups.
Get metadata and follower count for a Spotify artist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist_id | Yes | ||
| bearer_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that metadata and follower count are returned; it says nothing about auth behavior despite bearer_token being required, nor about error/not-found handling.
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?
One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity here is not the problem; the omission of detail is.
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?
No output schema exists and neither parameter is documented, so the description is the only place ID format, auth expectations, and return shape could be specified — and it covers none of them beyond naming two returned fields.
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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gives no hint whether artist_id is a Spotify base62 ID, a URI, or a name, and says nothing about how bearer_token is obtained or scoped. This is a real gap for a lookup tool where ID format is the most common failure mode.
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?
Concrete verb and resource ('Get metadata and follower count for a Spotify artist'), and it even names the returned fields. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling artist-lookup tools (deezer_get_artist, lastfm_artist_info, discogs_get_artist, genius_get_artist, mb_get_artist), so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.
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 context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the Spotify-flavored artist lookup among a dozen similar music-API siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.