@striderlabs/mcp-spotify

remove_from_playlist

Remove specific tracks from a Spotify playlist using their track URIs. Provide the playlist ID and a list of URIs to instantly clean up your playlist.

Instructions

Remove one or more tracks from a playlist by their Spotify track URIs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "playlistId": "<playlistId>",
      "uris": "<uris>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_playlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uris`	Yes	List of Spotify track URIs to remove
`playlistId`	Yes	Playlist ID from get_playlists

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does state the tool removes tracks, implying a mutating operation, but does not disclose details like whether it's reversible, requires specific permissions, or how it handles invalid URIs. This is a moderate disclosure but insufficient for a mutating tool without annotations.

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 one sentence, perfectly concise and front-loaded. It conveys essential information without any fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it could mention that removal is permanent or that at least one URI is required, but the schema already marks both as required. Overall adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are brief but clear. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't clarify URI format or playlist ID source beyond the schema's 'from get_playlists' hint.

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 (remove) and the resource (tracks in a playlist), specifying the input type (Spotify track URIs). It distinguishes from siblings like add_to_playlist, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use it (when removing tracks from a playlist) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites like needing the correct playlist ID and valid URIs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.