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 target distinct resources and actions (playlists, albums, playback, search), but the DJ-analytics cluster has overlap: auditDjPlaylist and analyzeDjPlaylist are nearly identical in purpose, and sortPlaylistByBpm overlaps with planDjSet. This creates a few ambiguous boundaries.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names consistently use camelCase verb_noun patterns (getPlaylist, createPlaylist, addTracksToPlaylist). Minor deviations include combined actions like saveOrRemoveAlbumForUser and the use of check instead of get in checkUsersSavedAlbums, but the overall style is coherent.
Tool Count2/5
With 37 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped. The large number is partly justified by Spotify's breadth (playback, library, playlists, audio features), but the DJ-planning subset alone adds 7 tools, pushing the count beyond reasonable usability and causing selection overhead.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers core Spotify workflows: playlist CRUD, library management, playback control, search, and user statistics. Missing minor features like shuffle/repeat, user profile, or artist follow, but the available tools handle the main use cases without dead ends.
Average 3.7/5 across 37 of 37 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 11 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only says 'Create a new playlist', which implies mutation but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicate names. No additional context is provided.
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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, containing no unnecessary words or repetitions.
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 create operation with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any reference to return values or usage context, and the absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description to explain the outcome.
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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (name, public, description) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.
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 the resource ('a new playlist on Spotify'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like updatePlaylist. However, it does not enumerate the configurable fields, so it's not as detailed as it could be.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updatePlaylist or addTracksToPlaylist. It also omits any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.
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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't state whether authentication is required, whether it triggers any side effects (e.g., device discovery), or what specific data is returned. This is minimal disclosure, leaving the agent to infer safety and side effects.
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 front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition. This is ideal conciseness for a straightforward getter tool.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what information is returned and in what form. It only says 'information about devices' without specifying that it returns a list of device objects, their IDs, names, or current status. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to use the results effectively, especially given sibling tools that likely require device IDs.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics since none exist. It adds no parameter-specific information, but this is not a deficiency given the tool's parameterless nature.
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 returns information about Spotify Connect devices, which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like playback controls and playlist management, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. The phrase 'get information' is slightly vague but conveys the core action effectively.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or which alternatives exist. There is no mention of using it before playback commands (e.g., to get device IDs for playMusic) or any context on how it fits into a workflow. The description simply states the function without any usage context.
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, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether playback starts immediately, whether items are appended to the end of the queue, or whether a device must be active. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with potential side effects.
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 sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the core 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?
The description is minimally adequate for a simple tool, but given the many sibling playback tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, it omits critical context. It does not explain how albums/artists are handled, queue insertion order, or error conditions, leaving significant ambiguity for 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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing all four parameters (id, uri, type, deviceId) with their purposes. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating the item types that align with the type enum. No additional parameter meaning is provided.
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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and clearly identifies the resource ('playback queue') and accepted item types ('track, album, artist or playlist'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like addTracksToPlaylist (which targets a playlist) and playMusic (which starts playback).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addTracksToPlaylist or playMusic. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more 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 present, so the description must explain behavior. It only states 'current user's playlists' but omits pagination limits, required scopes, and response structure.
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, straightforward sentence that delivers the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description as the sole context. It fails to mention that the result is an array of playlist objects or how the limit parameter affects paging, making it insufficient for agents needing detailed context.
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 provides full documentation for the single 'limit' parameter, including type, min, max, and description. Since the schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it adds none, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'list of playlists', and the scope 'current user's', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPlaylist (singular). It unambiguously states what the tool does.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or when to choose this over getPlaylist, so an agent receives no selection criteria.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a list of tracks' without explaining pagination (offset/limit), return structure, whether tracks are full objects or references, authentication needs, or error behavior. This is a minimal read operation but lacks important 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point. This is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain what a 'list of tracks' actually contains (e.g., track metadata, audio features) or how pagination works. This is insufficient for a tool that has no other documentation beyond the schema.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; all parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('a list of tracks in a Spotify playlist'), which distinguishes it from siblings like getAlbumTracks or getPlaylist. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getAlbumTracks or getUsersSavedTracks. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions.
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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Get a list' without covering authorization needs, return format, pagination, or whether this is limited to the user's own listening history. This is minimal and does not fully convey 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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is concise and efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits context about response structure, required Spotify scopes, and the fact that this returns the user's playback history. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this more significant, but the simplicity of the operation keeps it at a minimum viable level.
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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema with minimum/maximum values (1-50) and a clear description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add parameter details; baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'recently played tracks' and context 'on Spotify', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like getNowPlaying (current track) and getTopTracks (top tracks over time). It states exactly what the tool does.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or use cases beyond the basic action, so the agent must infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds the useful context that Spotify Premium is required, which is not present in the schema. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes (e.g., no active device), or whether the operation is reversible, leaving some 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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key prerequisite. Every word provides value, with no filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a prerequisite. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not distinguishing from the sibling 'adjustVolume', and it does not mention behaviors like auto-selecting a device or what happens if no active playback device exists.
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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the volume range ('0-100') already present in the schema and does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the structured parameter descriptions.
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 ('Set the playback volume to a specific percentage') and the resource (playback volume), with the valid range included. It is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'adjustVolume', so it does not fully achieve the level of distinguishing from siblings.
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 the similar-sounding sibling 'adjustVolume'. It only mentions a prerequisite (Spotify Premium), which is a constraint rather than usage context. There is no mention of alternatives 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the max 100 tracks limit, which is useful, but it does not disclose that the operation is destructive, whether it affects the playlist snapshot, what happens if a track is not found, or any access/authorization requirements. This is a significant gap 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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and includes the key limit. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool is a simple remove operation, but it is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description only states the core action and a limit, leaving out behavioral context like permanence, error handling, or prerequisites for using snapshotId. The schema describes parameters but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral disclosure.
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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema states (e.g., max 100 tracks is also in the schema). Baseline is 3, and no additional meaning is contributed.
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 ('Remove'), the resource ('tracks from a Spotify playlist'), and a key constraint (max 100 per request). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like addTracksToPlaylist or reorderPlaylistItems.
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 its usage context—removing tracks from a playlist—but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as playlist ownership or the optional snapshotId for targeted removal. The purpose is clear, but usage guidance is only implicit.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does, not side effects such as whether items are appended by default, how duplicates are handled, or whether specific authentication or permissions are needed. This lack of critical behavior details is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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, focused sentence, immediately stating the action and accepted input formats. It is free of superfluous details and efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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 add operation, the description plus schema adequately specify the inputs. However, the description omits details about the operation's outcome (e.g., whether a response returns the updated playlist) and any prerequisites. The lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should offer more context, but the tool's low complexity keeps this at a medium level.
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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description largely paraphrases the trackIds schema description (e.g., accepting full URIs for episodes) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: 'Add tracks or podcast episodes to a Spotify playlist.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of accepting IDs or URIs further clarifies scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like removeTracksFromPlaylist or reorderPlaylistItems.
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 adding items to a playlist but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison to siblings like addToQueue or createPlaylist is given, leaving the agent to infer the correct context from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that pagination is supported, which indicates limited results, but it omits other behaviors such as error handling, authentication needs, or that album_id is an alias for albumId. Partial 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds the pagination detail. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters. The description conveys the primary purpose and pagination but omits context such as authentication prerequisites, the alias parameter behavior, and what the response looks like. It is minimally viable but leaves clear 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination but does not elaborate on limit/offset specifics; the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions. No additional semantic value is added.
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 ('Get tracks') and the resource ('a specific album'), and 'pagination support' adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPlaylistTracks (tracks from a playlist) and getAlbums (album metadata).
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that albumId is required or note when pagination parameters should be used, nor does it compare with similar tools like getPlaylistTracks or getAlbums in the sibling list.
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, the description carries the full burden but provides only the basic action without details on read-only safety, required scopes, return format, or pagination. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the name itself implies.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a useful contextual note about listening statistics without padding.
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 tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks an explicit statement about the return value and any behavioral caveats, which would be helpful given no output schema or annotations.
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 already covers both parameters with full descriptions and defaults, so the description adds minimal parameter-specific value. The phrase 'over a given time range' aligns with timeRange but doesn't go beyond schema information.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's top artists'), explicitly clarifies it's most-played, and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on artists rather than tracks or albums. The phrase 'closest thing to listening statistics' adds helpful framing.
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 use for retrieving a user's top artists over a chosen time range but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like getTopTracks or state when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
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 and target device, but does not disclose what happens if playback is already playing, if no active device exists, or whether the call is idempotent. For a state-changing tool, this leaves important behavior unspecified.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant or filler content. It maximizes clarity with minimal words.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic action. However, the absence of annotations means the description should also cover behavioral edge cases and return behavior, which it does not. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, with the deviceId property already described as 'auto-selected if omitted'. The description only adds the phrase 'on the active device', which is consistent with the schema but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond it.
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 uses a specific verb 'Resume' and a clear resource 'Spotify playback', with a scope qualifier 'on the active device'. This distinguishes it from siblings like pausePlayback and playMusic, and makes the intent immediately clear.
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 verb 'Resume' implies the use case (when playback is paused), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like playMusic, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but omits important traits: it is a mutating operation, likely requires user authentication, and may be irreversible. No side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior are disclosed.
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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 two-parameter tool with complete schema documentation, the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context, and any note on return values. However, the schema covers parameters, and the purpose is clear, making it a minimally complete description for basic selection and invocation.
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% for both parameters. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for 'action' and 'albumIds'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.
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 (save or remove) and the resource (albums in the user's Your Music library). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like checkUsersSavedAlbums (read-only) or removeUsersSavedTracks (tracks, not albums).
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 adding/removing albums but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that checkUsersSavedAlbums exists for reading, or clarify prerequisites such as authentication. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
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, and the description adds little beyond the action itself. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., active playback session), side effects, error conditions, or whether a device must be specified. The agent is left without information about consequences or failure modes.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential information efficiently.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks context about when it is applicable (e.g., requiring an active queue) and any return value or error behavior. It is minimally adequate but has clear 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% for the single optional deviceId parameter, which is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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') and the target resource ('the next track in the current Spotify playback queue'). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like skipToPrevious or playMusic.
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 the tool (when you want to advance playback), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance such as 'use X instead when...' or 'only works when something is playing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool reads the queue and returns the current track plus upcoming items, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects beyond the 'Get' verb. This is adequate but could be more explicit about being read-only.
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 conveys the core function without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides a clear high-level response shape (a list) and scope, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter. It does not detail item structure, but this is not required given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.
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 fully describes the 'limit' parameter (1-50) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional information about parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'the currently playing track and the next items' in the queue, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getNowPlaying, which only fetch the current track, and addToQueue, which modifies the queue.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getNowPlaying or addToQueue. The description implies it is for viewing the queue, but does not mention alternative tools or any conditions for when it should be preferred.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the relative adjustment semantics and the premium requirement, but it omits other behavioral traits such as volume clamping at 0 or 100, behavior if no device is active, or whether the adjustment applies to a specific device. For a mutation tool, these gaps are significant.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence clarifies sign conventions and a prerequisite, without any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information.
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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and prerequisite. However, as a mutating tool without annotations, it lacks context about potential side effects, failure conditions (e.g., no active playback), and device selection nuances. The schema and output schema do not compensate because there is no output schema and the schema only documents parameter names. The description is adequate but not fully complete for safe invocation.
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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both deviceId and adjustment. The description's explanation of positive/negative values adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own description for adjustment. It does not elaborate on deviceId's optionality or selection behavior, which is already stated in the schema. Thus, the description provides no additional parameter semantics.
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 tool's action: 'Adjust the playback volume up or down by a relative amount.' This specific verb-resource pairing (adjust volume) with the 'relative' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tool setVolume, which adjusts to an absolute level. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by indicating the relative nature of adjustment and the requirement for Spotify Premium. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as mentioning setVolume for absolute adjustments. The premium requirement gives a usage condition, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance. This is more than implied usage but less than explicit alternative comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'without changing Spotify', which reinforces the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, but it does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. There is no mention of rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but the safety profile is already well-covered by 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action 'Audit' and lists the specific audit dimensions without any fluff or repetitive phrasing. Every word contributes to clarity, making it an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description effectively communicates the tool's scope and non-destructive nature, which is sufficient given the existence of an output schema and safety annotations. It could elaborate on terms like 'provider conflicts' or the expected output format, but the overall context is adequately covered for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the playlistId or source parameters. It only indirectly implies a playlist by saying 'complete Spotify playlist', but it does not specify that playlistId is required or what source options mean. The enum for source has no explanatory text in the description.
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 tool audits a Spotify playlist for specific criteria including audio-feature coverage, duplicate recordings, tempo ambiguity, provider conflicts, and heuristic candidates. The verb 'Audit' plus the resource and scope distinguishes it from the provided sibling tools like analyzeDjPlaylist or compareTrackAnalysis, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 the tool is used when a comprehensive playlist audit is needed before DJ planning, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit based on the listed audit categories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any caveats (e.g., handling of invalid album IDs). This is basic transparency but not rich.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key scope ('user's 'Your Music' library'). No filler or repetition.
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 one fully-documented parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not specify what the check returns (e.g., a single boolean or array of booleans), which would be helpful for an agent. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.
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 already fully describes the only parameter (albumIds) with type, maxItems, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('albums saved in the user's 'Your Music' library'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like getAlbums (which retrieves album metadata) and saveOrRemoveAlbumForUser (which modifies saved state).
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: use this when you need to know whether specific albums are saved in the user's library. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. This is implied rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'field-level provenance' as a behavioral trait, which is useful context beyond annotations, but does not elaborate on what provenance means or potential rate limits/errors. It is not contradictory to 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, specifying resource, features, ID type, range, and provenance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. However, the unexplained 'source' parameter and the vague 'field-level provenance' phrase leave some contextual gaps. Still, overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only batch feature retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially covers trackIds by specifying 'exact' and the 1–100 range, but it completely omits the 'source' parameter, which has an enum and default. The description does not clarify how source affects behavior or when to use each value, leaving a significant semantic gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('audio features') with a clear scope (1–100 exact Spotify track IDs). It names the exact features returned (BPM, key, mode, etc.), making it easy to distinguish from sibling playlist/playback tools and even from analysis tools like compareTrackAnalysis.
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 batch retrieval from exact track IDs, which distinguishes it from search or playlist-based tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as compareTrackAnalysis or analyzeDjPlaylist, nor does it mention exclusions like 'use searchSpotify if you don't have 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a list', which implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention pagination, authentication, or what happens if there are no saved tracks. Minimal behavioral context is added beyond the verb itself.
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 sentence of 11 words, extremely concise and front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 tool with two optional numeric parameters, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral nuances such as pagination behavior and output structure. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, additional context about the returned list or pagination would make it more complete.
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 fully describes both parameters (limit and offset) with clear descriptions and constraints, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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.
Purpose5/5
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 specific resource 'tracks saved in the user's 'Liked Songs' library', which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like getAlbumTracks or getPlaylistTracks. It immediately conveys the tool's function without any ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by identifying the 'Liked Songs' library, making it easy to infer when this tool should be used instead of other track-retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, lacking the 'when-not' guidance that would push it to a 5.
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 core operation but omits details about side effects (e.g., permanent modification of playlist order), permissions (e.g., ownership or collaboration rights), or failure modes (e.g., invalid range boundaries). This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning the highest score for structure.
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 tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. The schema explains all parameters, but the description does not mention important contextual aspects like the return value (e.g., updated snapshot ID) or preconditions. Given the tool's mutational nature, a bit more context would be valuable.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only refers abstractly to 'range' and 'new position,' which are already elaborated in the parameter descriptions. The schema sufficiently defines each parameter's semantics.
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 ('Reorder'), the object ('a range of tracks within a Spotify playlist'), and the specific change ('moving them to a new position'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addTracksToPlaylist or removeTracksFromPlaylist, which perform different operations on playlist tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—when you need to manually reorder tracks within a playlist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear given the tool name and description. A score of 4 reflects this clear context without explicit 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates playlist metadata but does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved, if changes are reversible, or what permissions are required. This lacks sufficient behavioral detail 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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical field list is efficiently integrated without redundancy.
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 description is adequate for a simple metadata update given the rich schema coverage, but it omits important operational context like partial update semantics and return behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, the description could provide more guidance on what to expect.
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 documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond listing the fields in parentheses. It provides no additional nuance such as value constraints or relationship between 'public' and 'collaborative'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'details of a Spotify playlist', listing the specific fields affected (name, description, public/private, collaborative). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like createPlaylist, getPlaylist, and addTracksToPlaylist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for modifying playlist details, which provides clear context relative to siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar operations (e.g., reorderPlaylistItems for track order).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation and specifies some return fields, but does not state potential side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and key details. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers essential return information (tracks count, description, owner). It does not enumerate all possible playlist details, but this is not necessary for a basic get operation.
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 already fully describes the only parameter (playlistId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies without further enhancement.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get details' with a clear resource 'specific Spotify playlist' and explicitly lists returned fields (tracks count, description, owner). This distinguishes it from siblings like getPlaylistTracks or getMyPlaylists.
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 playlist details are needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like getPlaylistTracks or getMyPlaylists. There is no mention of exclusions or direct comparisons, so it relies on implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the qualifier 'active device,' which is useful, but it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., active playback), error conditions, or side effects. The description is not misleading but leaves room for more 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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and directly states the tool's function. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description combined with the schema is nearly complete. It specifies the target scope ('active device') and the schema covers parameter details. Missing are explicit prerequisites or error handling, but for a basic pause action, this is 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% for the single optional deviceId parameter, which is fully explained ('The Spotify device ID (auto-selected if omitted)'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Pause') and the resource ('Spotify playback') with a specific scope ('on the active device'). This distinguishes it from siblings like resumePlayback or playMusic, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 the tool (to pause playback) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like resumePlayback exist, but no guidance is given on choosing between them. The context is clear but not elaborated.
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 only restates the maxItems limit already present in the schema, and does not mention authentication requirements, whether the operation is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the action, scope, and limit. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or redundant context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with one parameter fully described in the schema, the description provides adequate essential context: the action and the resource. However, the absence of any output schema or annotations means the description should ideally hint at what the client receives (e.g., success/failure), which it does not. Still, the simple nature of the operation makes the description reasonably complete.
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% because the parameter's description already explains it as 'Array of Spotify track IDs to remove (max 40)'. The tool description adds no new semantics beyond the schema; the max 40 constraint is duplicated. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('the user's Liked Songs library'), with a constraint ('max 40 per request'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like removeTracksFromPlaylist (playlist context) and saveOrRemoveAlbumForUser (albums), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys the context (removing from Liked Songs) and includes a usage constraint (max 40), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The resource naming and reference to 'Liked Songs' make the appropriate scenario evident, but without explicit alternatives, it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key limitation (no permanent deletion via the API) and clarifies the action as removal from the user's library. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, idempotency, or the effect on playlists the user owns, leaving room for more 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?
Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second adds a crucial API limitation. No unnecessary words; both sentences earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and a key limitation. It doesn't specify success/error responses or auth, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. Slightly more detail could make it fully complete.
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% coverage for the single parameter playlistId, with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parametric detail, but the schema already provides adequate meaning. Baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('playlist from the current user's library') and clarifies the action as 'unfollow'. It also distinguishes itself from permanent deletion via the note about Spotify API limitations, setting it apart from sibling tools like removeTracksFromPlaylist or updatePlaylist.
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 the tool (to unfollow a playlist) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't reference sibling tools like getMyPlaylists or removeTracksFromPlaylist, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: snapshot checks, durable progress receipts, ambiguous-write reconciliation, and final order verification. It does not restate the destructive hint (already present in annotations) but provides additional insight into how the tool operates.
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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It packs in the core modes, safety mechanisms, and default behavior without fluff, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex with multiple modes and integrity checks, and the description covers most key operational aspects. An output schema exists to handle return values, so that omission is acceptable. However, it does not mention prerequisites or when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving some completeness gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by relating 'snapshot checks' to expectedSnapshotId and noting 'dry-run is the default' for the dryRun parameter. However, it does not fully explain the action enum values or planId format, and several parameter details remain implicit.
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 tool's purpose: it can dry-run, apply, or restore an immutable DJ plan. It uses specific verbs and resource ('DJ plan') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like planDjSet by focusing on execution and restoration rather than creation or analysis.
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 through 'Dry-run is the default', suggesting safe preview before applying. However, it does not explicitly state when to use apply vs restore, nor does it mention alternative tools like planDjSet or auditDjPlaylist for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds 'immutable, snapshot-bound' and 'Does not change Spotify', which clarifies the side-effect profile. It does not contradict annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with 'Create'. It still omits details about whether the plan is persisted, but given annotation coverage, the added context earns a 4.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence is a short, valuable caveat. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
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?
This is a complex tool with 15 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, yet the description remains minimal. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., that analysisId likely comes from analyzeDjPlaylist), the meaning of 'snapshot-bound', or how the various constraint parameters interact. The output schema offsets some of the completeness gap, but not enough for such a complex operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 15 parameters, but it only mentions high-level balancing factors (tempo, Camelot compatibility, energy arc, artist spacing, constraints, data quality). Many parameters like beamWidth, riskThreshold, peakTokens, openingToken, closingToken, absoluteAnchors, and lockedTransitions are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('immutable, snapshot-bound professional DJ set-order plan'), and it enumerates the balancing factors ('tempo, Camelot compatibility, energy arc, artist spacing, constraints, and data quality'). The closing 'Does not change Spotify' clearly distinguishes it from applyDjSetPlan and other mutation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is the planning step that does not affect Spotify, implying it should be used before applyDjSetPlan. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does 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 states that device selection is automatic, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens if no device is available, whether it replaces the current queue or just starts playing, or if it requires a premium subscription. The core side effect (starting playback) is clear, but other behavioral aspects are omitted.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence earns its place. It efficiently covers the main usage, parameter details, and auto-selection behavior without redundancy or fluff.
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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the URI-based approach and aliases, but it does not explain the alternative to use id+type to identify the item, nor does it mention offset usage or what the tool returns. This leaves gaps in understanding for an agent trying to invoke it correctly in all scenarios, especially since no parameters are required.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 7 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying aliases (device_id is an alias for deviceId, context_uri is an alias for uri) and emphasizing that deviceId is optional because auto-selection happens. It also gives concrete URI examples. This goes slightly beyond the schema, but could further explain the id/type alternative and offset behavior.
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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Start playing a Spotify track, album, artist, or playlist.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pausePlayback, resumePlayback, skipToNext, and addToQueue by focusing on initiating playback of a specific item. The purpose is unmistakable and specific.
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 provides clear usage context: pass a Spotify URI, device auto-selected, optional deviceId. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like resumePlayback (for resuming paused playback) or skipToNext. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving potential ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds that 'Dry-run is the safe default,' which informs users that the tool can perform destructive reordering and that the dryRun parameter should be used for safety. It also labels the tool as 'Legacy,' suggesting it may be outdated. This provides context beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second gives an alternative and a safety tip. No unnecessary words.
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?
This is a complex tool with 6 parameters, destructive annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the high-level purpose and a dry-run hint. It lacks details on mode behaviors, return values, side effects, and feature overrides, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'dryRun' parameter ('Dry-run is the safe default') and the purpose implies mode 'tempoEnergy,' but it does not explain the 'mode' enum values, 'source' options, 'allowPartial,' or 'featureOverrides.' With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
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 identifies the tool as a 'tempo/energy ordering utility,' specifying what it does (orders playlists by tempo/energy) and distinguishes itself from the professional alternative 'planDjSet' by labeling itself 'Legacy.' This aligns with a specific verb+resource+scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly directs users to 'Use planDjSet for professional set planning,' naming an alternative tool and implying this is for legacy/simple cases. It also advises 'Dry-run is the safe default,' giving a usage tip. However, it does not elaborate on specific scenarios where this tool should be preferred over other sorting or reordering tools, so it's not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, including 'snapshot-bound' results, 'confidence when available', and the explicit statement 'without changing Spotify'. This clarifies the tool's side effects relative to the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint annotations. However, it does not disclose the potential internal state change from refreshFeatures, but this is not a contradiction.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and key outputs. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or redundant details.
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 description covers the core purpose, safety (no Spotify changes), and return highlights, but it lacks parameter usage context and explicit differentiation from related tools. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, feature overrides, source selection), the description is not fully complete, though the output schema and annotations fill some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies playlistId through 'complete Spotify playlist' and vaguely alludes to 'unresolved data' for missingFeaturePolicy. Parameters like source, refreshFeatures, featureOverrides, and missingFeaturePolicy are not explained, leaving the agent without adequate guidance for their use.
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 tool's primary function: 'Analyze a complete Spotify playlist for professional set-order planning.' It lists specific outputs (BPM, Camelot key, relative energy, provenance, confidence) and explicitly notes that Spotify is not changed, which distinguishes it from other analysis/sorting/planning tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case ('professional set-order planning'), which indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use auditDjPlaylist or planDjSet instead), so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, error handling, authentication, or rate limits. It meets the minimum viability but lacks richer behavioral 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward get-by-ID tool, the description and schema cover the essential information. There is no output schema, but the return value is implied ('detailed information'). It does not elaborate on response structure, but that is not necessary for basic usage.
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 covers both parameters fully, including the max 20 limitation and the alias. The description aligns with the schema but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the action (Get), the resource (albums), and the input (Spotify IDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getAlbumTracks, which fetches tracks for an album, by focusing on album-level detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: use this tool when you have Spotify album IDs and want detailed album information. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns track information plus device and volume info, but does not mention edge cases such as what occurs when nothing is playing or whether the operation is read-only. This is a basic disclosure without significant behavioral 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant details. It includes the key resource and specific extra info (device and volume), making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless getter tool, the description provides core functionality and specific return details (device and volume). Without an output schema, it could be more explicit about what constitutes 'information' (e.g., artist, progress, timestamps), but it is largely complete for simple usage.
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 shows zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary information.
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 tool retrieves the currently playing track on Spotify, using 'Get' as a specific verb and 'currently playing track' as a specific resource. It also adds device and volume info, distinguishing it from sibling tools like getQueue or getRecentlyPlayed.
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 you need now-playing information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and adds context about listening statistics, but it does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as auth requirements, default time range (though in schema), or response format. This is a moderate disclosure for a simple read 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains zero filler. Every clause serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, scope, and purpose. It lacks an explicit statement about return format, but the phrase 'top tracks' implies a list. This is solid but not fully exhaustive.
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%, and both parameters (limit, timeRange) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only referencing 'over a given time range' which aligns with timeRange. Baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Get the current user's top (most-played) tracks' and adds time-range scope. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like getTopArtists (tracks vs artists) and getRecentlyPlayed (top vs recent) by focusing on 'top' tracks and 'listening statistics'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by stating 'This is the closest thing Spotify exposes to listening statistics,' implying it's for statistical/analytical use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks the full guidance of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention important behavioral traits such as requiring active playback or behavior at the start of the queue. However, the action is simple and non-destructive, so minimal transparency is still adequate.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys purpose and context efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description and schema together cover the essentials. It does not detail edge cases, but for a basic playback control this is a minor gap.
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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (deviceId) with a description: 'The Spotify device ID (auto-selected if omitted)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('skip to previous track') and resource ('current Spotify playback queue'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like skipToNext. It is unambiguous and accurately describes the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying the current Spotify playback queue, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., skipToNext for the next track) or exclusions. It is clear enough for most use cases without being overly prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 usefully reveals that podcast queries match title, description, and publisher, which is beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as result ordering, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving a moderate gap for a read-heavy 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 two sentences long and front-loads the primary function. The second sentence efficiently adds podcast-specific nuance without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description combined with the complete input schema covers the essential context for a search tool: what it searches, the parameter types, and the special behavior for podcasts. It lacks explicit mention of output shape or pagination beyond schema, but the overall picture is sufficiently complete for an API search function.
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 covers 100% of parameters, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful value for the 'type' parameter, explaining specific use cases for 'episode' and 'show' that go beyond the enum labels. Other parameters are handled adequately by the schema.
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 tool searches for six specific content types on Spotify, using the specific verb 'Search' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by comprehensively covering all Spotify searchable content types, while siblings focus on individual albums, playlists, or playback actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage guidance, explicitly suggesting when to use 'episode' (find individual podcast episodes by topic/guest) versus 'show' (find podcast series), and explains matching behavior for podcasts. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the domain is obvious given the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing Spotify.' It adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: field-level provenance, missing providers, half/double-time-aware conflicts, and provider failures. No contradiction exists.
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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the action, the resource, the output highlights, and the safety guarantee all in one compact sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations, an output schema, and a simple two-parameter input, the description covers the core purpose and important behavioral nuances (provenance, missing providers, conflicts, failures). It lacks explicit usage prerequisites or alternative-tool guidance, but these are minor gaps because the schema and annotations already convey structural and safety information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It only says 'track IDs' and 'audio-analysis providers' at a high level, omitting parameter names, required status, array constraints, provider enum values, and defaults. The agent gets little semantic help beyond the schema's property names and types.
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 begins with a specific verb and object: 'Compare exact Spotify track IDs across available audio-analysis providers.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like getTrackAudioFeatures or analyzeDjPlaylist by focusing on cross-provider comparison and reporting provenance/conflicts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes obvious that this tool is for comparing the same track IDs across multiple audio-analysis providers, and the phrase 'without changing Spotify' signals a safe read-only context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear enough.
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/martin-gomola/spotify-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martin-gomola/spotify-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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