spotify-mcp

by martin-gomola

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.2
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have clear resource+action pairs, but the audio-analysis group (compare, features, audit) and the two search tools (search, podcast_discover) have overlapping responsibilities that could cause misselection. The sampling tool for liked songs also blurs with the paginated saved_tracks tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern with the spotify_ prefix (e.g., spotify_play, spotify_pause, spotify_playlist_create). Even the DJ and podcast subdomains follow the same convention, making naming predictable.
Tool Count1/5
With 53 tools, the surface is extreme for an MCP server, even for a broad domain like Spotify. The count far exceeds the 25+ threshold and makes the set overwhelming, risking agent confusion and excessive selection overhead.
Completeness4/5
The server covers most major Spotify workflows: library management, playback control, playlists, podcast/saved episodes, and audio analysis. However, there is no direct tool for fetching a single track or artist details, leaving minor gaps in basic metadata retrieval.
Average 3.9/5 across 53 of 53 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 25 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context—it does not describe response format, empty-list behavior, or authorization requirements. It essentially restates the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, lacking any parameter or usage details that could make the sentence more valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool shape (1 optional parameter, output schema present, strong annotations), the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it misses parameter semantics and any guidance on alternatives, leaving minor but notable gaps for a complete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Since the schema provides only constraints (default, min, max) but no semantic meaning, the description fails to compensate. Users are left to guess what 'limit' does.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('current user's most recently played Spotify tracks'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spotify_now_playing and spotify_top_tracks through the phrase 'most recently played', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as spotify_now_playing (current track) and spotify_top_tracks (long-term stats) are not mentioned, and no context is given about availability, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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 behavioral context beyond annotations: 'snapshot checks,' 'receipts,' and 'fresh verification' suggest safety mechanisms, which are not present in the annotations. However, these terms are not explained, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires auth, or returns a receipt in a specific format. Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds some, but not rich, context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core purpose. It wastes no words and maintains a clear structure. However, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness as a complete guide.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false) with three parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning or usage of the parameters, the difference between preview and actual application, or the role of expected_snapshot_id. Even though an output schema exists, the operational workflow is unclear, making the description incomplete 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.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention plan_id, dry_run, or expected_snapshot_id at all. The schema itself provides only titles and defaults, leaving the semantics of these parameters entirely unexplained. The description provides no parameter-related value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb pair 'Preview or apply' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a plan.' It distinguishes from siblings like spotify_dj_plan (which likely creates plans) and spotify_dj_restore (which restores). However, terms like 'snapshot checks' and 'fresh verification' are vague and could benefit from elaboration.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Preview or apply' but does not explain when to use dry_run versus a real apply, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., restore, audit) for comparison. The usage context is implied but not stated.
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 indicate that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context that it operates on mutation receipts and can preview or restore, but it does not explain the actual side effects of 'restore' or the role of expected_snapshot_id, leaving behavioral details vague.
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 key object. It is appropriately sized and contains no 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?
Given the tool complexity (3 params, mutation semantics, output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of expected_snapshot_id, the difference between preview and restore, or the context of a 'mutation receipt'. Even with an output schema, the agent needs more operational 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?
The schema has 0% coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'mutation receipt' hints at receipt_id, but dry_run and expected_snapshot_id are not described. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 ('Preview or restore') and the resource ('the exact pre-plan order recorded in a mutation receipt'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like spotify_dj_plan, apply, and audit by focusing on restoring from a receipt, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to related tools like spotify_dj_audit or spotify_dj_apply. The only implicit context is that it involves mutation receipts.
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=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the 'playback' context and range, which is mildly useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like what happens if no device is active or whether it affects a specific device, leaving gaps beyond the structured data.
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 (eight words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words or redundancy beyond the schema's min/max, which is acceptable.
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 mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks any usage context, clarification of device_id semantics, or distinction from sibling tools, so it does not fully equip the agent for correct invocation.
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 parameter meanings. It explains the volume range (aligned with schema min/max) but entirely omits device_id, which is optional but important for targeting the correct playback device. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic types.
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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Spotify playback volume') with a clear scope (0 to 100 percent), making the core function obvious. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'spotify_adjust_volume', so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially the similar 'spotify_adjust_volume'. It does not mention prerequisites like having an active device or context for setting absolute vs relative volume.
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 indicate non-read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the specific action (skip to previous) but omits edge cases like behavior at the start of the queue or device-specific requirements. No contradiction with 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?
A single, focused sentence. No redundant or filler content.
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 (1 optional parameter, no required fields, output schema present), but the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., active playback), meaning of 'previous' in edge cases, and whether device_id is needed for remote devices. Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 explain the device_id parameter at all. The agent must infer its meaning solely from the name, which is insufficient when the description carries no parameter 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 'Skip to the previous item in Spotify playback' clearly specifies the verb (skip), resource (previous item), and distinguished from sibling tools like spotify_next.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling playback controls like spotify_play or spotify_next.
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: it discloses the dry-run default, snapshot checks, durable receipts, and fresh verification for the applying path. This gives the agent a practical understanding of the safety workflow, even though it does not detail exactly what destructive changes occur (though the title and annotations already imply playlist reordering).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is just two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Preview or apply...'). It is appropriately concise, though the second sentence uses cryptic terms like 'durable receipts' and 'fresh verification' that add density without immediate clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with six parameters, one required argument, destructive annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to guide correct invocation. It does not explain the mode enum variants, source selection policy, overrides behavior, or how this workflow relates to other DJ tools, even though an output schema exists.
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% for top-level parameters, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any parameter meanings. The dry_run parameter is hinted at by the description, but mode, source, overrides, allow_partial, and playlist_id semantics are left to inference from names and enums, which is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.
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 identifies the tool as a preview-or-apply workflow for reordering playlists by BPM and energy, and the title reinforces the BPM sorting purpose. However, the phrase 'compatibility BPM and energy ordering' uses unexplained jargon, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like spotify_dj_apply or spotify_playlist_reorder.
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 gives implied usage guidance by noting that dry-run is the default and applying uses verification steps, which suggests a preview-before-apply pattern. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance compared to the many related playlist and DJ tools 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific scope of 'playback queue,' but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active playback), behavior at queue end, or the role of the optional device_id parameter.
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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and adds no 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?
For a simple skip action, the description expresses the core function, but misses key context such as the optional device_id purpose and any failure conditions. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but behavioral context is thin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional device_id parameter with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not compensate by explaining what device_id is for or how it affects invocation.
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 'skip' and identifies the resource as 'the next item in the Spotify playback queue,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like spotify_previous and spotify_play.
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 action is clear, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mentions alternatives. It implicitly suggests use during active playback, but does not contrast with spotify_previous or note any prerequisites.
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 convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds a behavioral note about verifying the resulting state, which is useful, but the phrase 'current shared library endpoint' is vague and introduces ambiguity. It does not contradict annotations, but the behavioral context is limited.
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 about 16 words, efficient and front-loaded. It conveys the essential purpose and a key behavioral nuance without any fluff 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 is simple (one parameter, output schema present) and annotations cover key behavioral traits. However, the description lacks usage guidance and sibling differentiation, and the ambiguous 'shared library endpoint' leaves room for misinterpretation. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke without extra assumptions.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It adds the qualifier 'exact', clarifying that the album_ids parameter requires exact Spotify album IDs, not names or fuzzy matches. However, it does not explain the format, the min/max array bounds, or any other parameter details, so compensation is only partial.
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'), the resource ('exact Spotify album IDs'), and adds a unique behavior ('verify the resulting state once'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like spotify_album_library_remove and spotify_album_library_contains, 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., spotify_library_save). It implies usage for saving albums by ID but does not mention exclusions or preference, leaving the agent to infer 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses immutability, determinism, and no Spotify changes, which adds context beyond the annotations. The idempotentHint and destructiveHint are consistent, and readOnlyHint=false is not directly contradicted as the tool may modify internal state without touching Spotify.
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: 'Create an immutable deterministic DJ order without changing Spotify.' Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant filler or unnecessary detail.
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 lacks parameter semantics and clarity on what analysis_id, energy_curve, and artist_spacing do. It also does not explain how this tool fits with related DJ planning tools, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation despite having an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero information about the three parameters (analysis_id, energy_curve, artist_spacing). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but does not, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings and usage.
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 it creates an immutable deterministic DJ order without changing Spotify. The verb 'create' and the resource 'DJ order' are specific, and the scope 'without changing Spotify' differentiates it from sibling tools like spotify_dj_apply.
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 planning without Spotify side effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like spotify_dj_apply or spotify_dj_analyze, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe profile is known. The description adds value by enumerating the specific audit checks and explicitly stating 'without changing Spotify', reinforcing the read-only behavior. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Audit every position in a Spotify playlist') and efficiently lists the audit dimensions. Every phrase adds meaning; there is no fluff 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 a moderately complex input schema with an overrides object and an enum source, yet the description does not mention them, making the complete picture incomplete. However, the output schema is present and annotations cover safety, and the description does thoroughly explain the audit scope. The missing parameter context drags the score down.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has three parameters (playlist_id, source, overrides) and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameter. The description is entirely about the audit behavior and gives no guidance on how to use 'source' or 'overrides', despite these being essential for customizing the audit. This is a critical gap that the schema itself only partially fills.
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 'Audit' with a clear resource ('every position in a Spotify playlist') and enumerates the exact checks performed (audio-feature coverage, duplicates, tempo ambiguity, provider conflicts, heuristic candidates). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_audio_features or spotify_dj_analyze.
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 auditing a playlist before DJ planning or analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like spotify_dj_analyze or spotify_playlist_items. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent action, and the description adds the context that it operates on a selected or active device. It does not disclose additional behavior such as what happens if no device is active or whether it fails silently, but with annotation coverage, the description meets the baseline 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 a single, concise sentence of nine words, with no redundancy or extra information. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately conveys 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 simple playback control tool with one optional parameter, the description, combined with annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) and the presence of an output schema, provides a fairly complete picture. It lacks explicit usage context (e.g., when playback is paused) but is adequate for the tool's low complexity.
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 device_id as an optional string/null parameter with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by implying that the device_id selects the target device and that omitting it uses the active device, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's semantics or null behavior.
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 resumes Spotify playback on a selected or active device, using the specific verb 'resume' and resource 'Spotify playback'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'spotify_play', which could also be used to start playback, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 this tool should be used when playback is paused or interrupted, and the mention of 'selected or active device' gives context about device targeting. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'spotify_play' or 'spotify_pause', nor any mention of prerequisites or error conditions.
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 convey that the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent (adding duplicates possible), and not destructive. The description does not contradict these hints, but it adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects (e.g., appending to the end of the queue, requiring an active device) or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description meets the minimum bar but does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the structured data.
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 leads with the primary action and then states the required identifier formats. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. There is no verbose restating of the title, and the sentence is easy to scan.
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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description covers the main identifier logic but omits any mention of device_id or the implications of adding to a queue (e.g., whether an active device is required). While an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description leaves the optional device context ambiguous. The overall picture is adequate for a simple action but lacks some contextual detail that would make it fully self-contained.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It usefully states 'Provide a Spotify URI or both item_type and item_id,' which clarifies the mutually exclusive relationship between uri and (item_type, item_id), a crucial detail given that all parameters are optional in the schema. However, it does not explain the 'device_id' parameter at all, leaving a gap for how to target a specific playback device. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but not fully.
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: 'Add one track or podcast episode to the Spotify queue.' The verb 'Add' is specific, the resource is 'Spotify queue', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spotify_queue (view queue), spotify_play (immediate playback), and library save tools. The alternative identification methods (URI or item_type+item_id) are also mentioned, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when you want to add to the queue) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as spotify_play for immediate playback or spotify_queue for viewing the queue. There are no exclusions or 'when not to use' statements. The brief phrasing suggests the intended use case but leaves the comparative guidance to the agent to infer.
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 annotations: it states that audio is fetched on every call (no feature cache), that the analysis is stored in a position-safe manner, and that legacy features can override provider values. These details clarify side effects and performance traits that annotations don't capture.
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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds distinct information (purpose, missing-feature policy, caching behavior). There is no 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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description leaves gaps: it doesn't explain the source parameter, the overrides array (beyond a $defs description), or how the stored analysis is retrieved or used. 'Position-safe' is mentioned but not elaborated. For a tool with 5 parameters and side effects, more context would be helpful, but core behavior is covered.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0%, and the description partially compensates by explaining missing_feature_policy (anchor/error) and features override. However, source selection, overrides (only covered by a $defs description), and playlist_id are not explained in the prose, leaving some parameters underspecified.
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: 'Fetch current audio evidence and store a position-safe DJ analysis.' It distinguishes this from sibling DJ tools (plan, apply, restore, audit) by identifying it as the analysis step, and uses specific terminology like 'position-safe' to convey scope.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spotify_audio_features or spotify_dj_plan is given. The mention of 'anchor' and 'error' policies and 'no cache' provides parameter-level behavior but does not address tool selection or workflow 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?
The description does not contradict annotations. With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the agent can infer this is a mutating, non-idempotent action. The description adds the context of 'selected or active device' but does not disclose what happens if no device is available or whether playback state is replaced.
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-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to scan.
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?
Output schema exists, so return details are covered. The tool is moderately complex with 5 optional parameters. The description covers the essential usage pattern, but omits behavior for edge cases like no active device, offset meaning, and what 'selected' implies. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds crucial semantics by explaining the two mutually exclusive ways to specify the target (URI vs. item_type + item_id). However, it does not elaborate on offset or device_id semantics, leaving those to the schema defaults.
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 starts a Spotify track, album, artist, or playlist on a selected or active device, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling playback controls like resume, pause, next, and previous by explicitly targeting playback initiation.
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 concrete parameter guidance ('Provide a Spotify URI or both item_type and item_id') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like spotify_resume or spotify_next. The notion of 'selected or active device' implies context, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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 a verification step ('re-read its visibility once') and a retry policy ('never retried blindly'), which go beyond the boolean annotations. This informs the agent about post-create behavior and error handling that isn't captured in structured fields.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a critical behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core create operation and an important verification behavior. It lacks explicit parameter context, but the schema fills that gap reasonably. It's complete enough for a simple create tool with a notable verification twist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining the parameters. It does not mention name, public, or description at all, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.
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 'Create a Spotify playlist,' which is a specific verb+resource construction. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like spotify_playlist_update and spotify_playlist_add by focusing on the creation action.
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 via the 'Create' verb but provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.
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 annotations already establish safety: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the data scope ('current user's') and the time-range qualifier, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or any limitations. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 main action ('Return') and resource ('most-played artists'). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.
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, the well-defined input schema (with defaults and enums), the comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It provides the core purpose and leaves parameter details to the schema. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the limit parameter, but the schema covers it with defaults and bounds.
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 parameter meaning. It does mention 'time range' (mapping to time_range), but it does not explain the enum values or the limit parameter at all. The description adds partial semantic for time_range but leaves limit completely undocumented. The schema itself is self-explanatory for limit, but the description fails to compensate for the low 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 function: 'Return the current user's most-played artists for a Spotify time range.' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource ('current user's most-played artists'), and notes the time-range parameter. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool spotify_top_tracks, which focuses on tracks rather than artists.
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 context by indicating it is for retrieving the current user's top artists within a Spotify time range. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use, or exclusions. The usage is implied but not contrasted with sibling tools like spotify_top_tracks or spotify_recently_played. This falls under 'implied usage' 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'most-played' and 'time range' scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authorization needs or pagination.
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 and contains no irrelevant information. It efficiently conveys the core function.
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 read-only tool with output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose and scope. It lacks parameter semantics but these are separately addressed, and the overall context is complete for the tool's 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 only mentions 'time range' without explaining the enum values (short_term, medium_term, long_term) or the limit parameter. It does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema 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 tool returns the current user's most-played tracks for a time range, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like spotify_top_artists (top artists) and spotify_recently_played (recently played).
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 retrieving top tracks by time range, but does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'exact' match requirement and 'current user' scope, which are useful. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors like how invalid IDs are handled or the format of the response, though the output schema presumably covers that. No contradiction with 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, clear sentence with no redundant wording, earning a top score.
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 membership check with one parameter and an output schema, the description is functionally complete. It lacks any usage exclusions or edge-case notes, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation. A score of 4 reflects the small gap in usage guidance.
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 has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to explain the parameter. The description says 'exact Spotify track IDs,' which clarifies that the track_ids parameter expects exact ID strings, but it does not mention the array format, the 1-40 item limit, or the required nature. This is minimal compensation, so a score of 3.
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 (check), the resource (Liked Songs), and the scope (exact track IDs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like spotify_saved_tracks or spotify_album_library_contains.
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 verify if specific tracks are in Liked Songs), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that spotify_saved_tracks could list liked songs, or that spotify_album_library_contains is for albums. Thus, it relies on the tool name and context for differentiation.
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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the context that playback pauses on a 'selected or active device', which is useful. It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if no device is active) or side effects, but given the annotations cover safety, this is 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 10-word sentence that is up-front and to the point. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant information.
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?
This is a simple 1-parameter control tool. The description sufficiently covers the action and device targeting. The presence of an output schema and annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) reduces the need for more detail. A minor gap is the lack of mention about what happens when no device is found, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.
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 has one optional device_id parameter with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'on a selected or active device' gives meaning to device_id: it can specify a device or fall back to the active one. This compensates partially, but it doesn't explain how to obtain a device_id or the exact behavior when null.
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 'Pause Spotify playback on a selected or active device' uses a specific verb ('pause') and resource ('Spotify playback'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like spotify_resume, spotify_play, and spotify_next. The scope ('selected or active device') adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when the user wants to pause Spotify playback. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or contrast with alternatives (e.g., stop vs pause). The context of 'selected or active device' gives some situational hint, but the guidance is basically implicit rather than explicit.
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=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the constraint that the ID must be 'exact', which is useful, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling or pagination. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate 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 sentence that directly state the action and required input. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, strong annotations, and an output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and input requirement adequately. It could mention what happens when an invalid ID is provided or how it differs from list tools, but those are not critical for invocation. The description is slightly terse but sufficient for the 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It does specify that the playlist_id must be an exact Spotify playlist ID, which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Playlist Id' string type. However, it lacks format details (e.g., URI vs alphanumeric ID) and does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions, so a midpoint score 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 returns metadata for a specific playlist ID, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Spotify playlist'). The phrase 'exact Spotify playlist ID' distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_playlists (which lists playlists) and spotify_playlist_items (which gets items in a playlist).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'exact Spotify playlist ID' implies the user must already have a concrete ID rather than searching by name, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. This is implied usage, not 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 communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the pagination concept 'one page' and 'current user' scope, which is useful but not extensive. It does not contradict annotations and adds some behavioral context beyond them.
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 conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words.
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 read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It conveys the scope and pagination aspect. It does not mention authentication requirements or return details, but given the output schema exists and the tool's simplicity, it is sufficient.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate for parameter meaning. The phrase 'one page' hints that 'limit' and 'offset' control pagination, but it does not explicitly define them. Given the schema includes defaults and constraints, this is adequate for a simple paginated list, but more direct explanation would be better.
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 'Return' with a clear resource 'current user's Spotify playlists' and scoping 'one page'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_playlist (single playlist) and spotify_playlist_items (items within a playlist).
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 clearly indicates the primary use case (listing the current user's playlists) but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like spotify_playlist for a single playlist or spotify_search for finding any playlist. Usage is implied from context rather than spelled out.
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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the pagination behavior ('one page') and user scope ('current user's'), which are useful. However, it does not disclose ordering, default page size behavior, or potential empty results.
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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 paginated read with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and pagination. It does not mention ordering or auth, but the output schema handles return structure and the annotations cover side-effect safety. Overall adequate, with minor 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by saying 'one page', implying limit/offset pagination. However, it does not explicitly define 'limit' as maximum items or 'offset' as starting position. The parameter meanings are mostly inferable from standard conventions and schema constraints.
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 states the exact verb ('Return') and resource ('current user's Spotify Liked Songs'), and the phrase 'one page' clearly indicates a paginated listing. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like spotify_library_contains (checking) or spotify_library_save (mutating).
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 (retrieve liked songs) and hints at pagination with 'one page', but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like spotify_sample_liked_songs or state when not to use this tool. No clear 'when vs when not' guidance is provided.
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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the return includes item, state, device, and volume, but does not disclose behavior such as what happens when playback is inactive or whether an error is returned. This is acceptable given the annotations but not richly transparent.
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 directly states the tool's action and output. There is no wasted verbiage, and it effectively communicates the core behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple, parameterless read-only tool. The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. The given description fully specifies the tool's scope, making it complete for its simplicity.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate. The output schema likely covers the return structure, so no further parameter semantics are needed.
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 returns the current Spotify playback item, state, device, and volume. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current Spotify playback'), and the enumerated fields distinguish it from broader siblings like spotify_status or spotify_devices.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spotify_status or spotify_devices. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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 a critical behavioral warning about snapshot verification and the danger of blind retries on ambiguous results, which goes beyond the idempotentHint=false annotation. It also clarifies the accepted input format ('exact' IDs/URIs), adding useful 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or generic phrasing.
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 primary action and the important retry ambiguity, but it lacks guidance on prerequisites like playlist ownership and does not place the tool in context relative to siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return details, but parameter constraints could be more explicit.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that item_ids_or_uris accepts track IDs or track/episode URIs. However, it does not explain the optional 'position' parameter or constraints like max items, leaving gaps.
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 adds exact Spotify track IDs or track/episode URIs, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling playlist operations like create, update, remove, and reorder by explicitly saying 'add'.
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 this tool over alternatives like spotify_add_to_queue or library_save. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds value by specifying that it returns both tracks and podcast episodes, and only one page (pagination behavior). This is useful context beyond the safety hints.
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 fluff. It uses the verb 'Return' first and conveys the core action immediately.
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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope (tracks/episodes, one page, exact ID). It lacks explicit instructions on pagination handling, but the schema's limit/offset defaults and the word 'page' provide sufficient 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 implicitly mentions playlist_id and gives no explanation of limit or offset, aside from 'one page' which vaguely relates to pagination. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns one page of tracks and podcast episodes from a specific playlist ID, using a specific endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spotify_playlist (playlist metadata) and playlist modification tools.
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 phrase 'one page' suggests pagination and 'exact playlist ID' hints at prerequisites, but there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spotify_playlist for metadata). It does not state when not to use it.
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 declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the description's extra note about a missing returned snapshot being 'explicitly ambiguous' adds meaningful behavioral context that is not in the structured annotations. It also specifies the use of the 'current items endpoint', providing additional operational detail.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core action and then provide an important caveat. No words are wasted, and it remains clear and focused.
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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adds the key ambiguity warning and endpoint context. It is not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of permission requirements), but it covers the essential behavioral nuance beyond structured fields.
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 description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only hints at parameters like playlist_id ('exact playlist ID'), range_start/range_length ('consecutive range'), and snapshot_id ('snapshot'). It does not explain the crucial 'insert_before' semantics or how the range parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
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 'Move a consecutive range' on a specific resource 'exact playlist ID' using a specific endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling operations like playlist_add or playlist_remove. The verb and resource are precise 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case by describing the specific reorder operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references. It is clear what it does, but the 'when to use' guidance is only implied through the action description.
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 declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it returns 'one bounded page', indicating the paginated nature of results. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand that repeated calls with offset may be needed for full results.
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 and front-loaded. It states the core action, the resource, and a key constraint ('bounded page') without any fluff, earning its place fully.
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 that the tool is a simple read-only paginated listing, the combination of a rich input schema (with defaults and ranges), strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and an output schema means the description does not need to explain everything. It covers the essential contextual detail of pagination and exact ID requirement. However, it lacks any mention of when to use this vs. alternative show-related tools, so it is not fully complete.
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 description has 0% schema coverage: it does not mention limit or offset semantics. It only refers to 'exact Spotify show ID', which maps to show_id but adds no new meaning. The phrase 'one bounded page' hints at pagination but does not explain how limit/offset work, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema defaults and titles.
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 ('Return') and resource ('episodes for an exact Spotify show ID'), clearly conveying what the tool does. It also distinguishes from siblings like spotify_podcast_show (likely show details) and spotify_podcast_episode (single episode) by explicitly focusing on the episodes list for a show.
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 'for an exact Spotify show ID', indicating that this is for listing episodes when you already have the show ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like spotify_podcast_show or spotify_search, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool names.
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the nuance that it returns both the current item and next items, which is useful but doesn't go beyond what the tool obviously does. No mention of limits, pagination, or playback state considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant phrasing. Every word earns its 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 read-only tool with a single optional parameter, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and output. The output schema covers return details. However, it could explicitly mention that limit applies to the next items only, which is a minor gap.
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 has 0% description coverage for the `limit` parameter, and the description doesn't explain that limit controls how many items are returned. While the name 'limit' gives some hint, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's default/min/max values.
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 'Return' and names the resource ('current item and next items in the Spotify playback queue'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like spotify_now_playing or spotify_add_to_queue. It leaves no ambiguity about 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for reading the queue state, but it doesn't explicitly compare it to alternatives such as spotify_now_playing or spotify_devices. It provides clear context (returns queue contents) but no exclusions 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by noting the paginated nature ('one page') and user-specific scoping, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as default order or potential error conditions. This is adequate given the annotation richness.
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: 'Return one page of albums saved in the current user's Spotify library.' Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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 simple with a rich output schema and robust annotations, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the core purpose, user scope, and pagination. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit usage guidance and parameter semantics, but for a read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete.
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 parameter meaning. It merely says 'one page,' which hints at pagination but does not explicitly explain that 'limit' controls page size and 'offset' controls the starting point. Without any parameter descriptions, the description adds little beyond the schema's defaults and bounds.
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 'Return' and the resource 'albums saved in the current user's Spotify library,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_saved_tracks and spotify_albums. It also defines the scope (current user) and pagination behavior ('one page'), 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 provides clear context that this tool retrieves albums saved in the current user's library, which implies its primary use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., spotify_albums) or state any exclusions, stopping 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description's confirmation of 'without changing Spotify' adds little there. However, it goes beyond annotations by cautioning not to 'treat heuristic measurements as musical quality scores,' which is valuable behavioral context about how to interpret the tool's output.
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 uses a strong verb and immediately states the tool's scope and constraints. Every phrase earns its place, 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?
Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the basic functionality (audit without modifying) is adequately conveyed. However, the description does not explain how 'overrides' factor into the audit, what 'conflicts' means in practice, or how source selection affects results. This leaves a moderate gap in understanding for a tool with 3 parameters, though the output schema likely resolves return-value questions.
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 needed to compensate, but it only indirectly references track_ids via 'exact Spotify track IDs.' It says nothing about the 'source' parameter or the 'overrides' array, which are non-obvious for an audit tool. An agent would have to rely on parameter names alone, and 'overrides' especially is ambiguous.
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 verb 'Audit' clearly indicates a verification/analysis action, and the resource is explicitly 'audio-analysis coverage and conflicts for exact Spotify track IDs.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_audio_features (which fetches features) and spotify_audio_compare (which compares tracks), and the qualifier 'without changing Spotify' reinforces its read-only nature.
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 implies this tool is for auditing coverage (which tracks have analysis data) and conflicts (discrepancies against overrides), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, even though no explicit exclusions are given.
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 the noteworthy behavior of re-reading each requested field for verification, which is not captured in the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, open world). It also clarifies the need for an exact playlist ID. No annotation contradictions exist.
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 verb and resource, with zero wasted words. It earns every character.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations and output schema, the description is adequate for a simple update, but it does not explicitly state that only provided fields are changed. This is a significant gap for correct invocation, especially with multiple nullable parameters. It is not as rich as the ideal, but not incomplete enough to be a 2.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by enumerating the updatable fields or clarifying that omitted fields retain their current values. The 'requested field' phrase offers a hint but is vague, leaving the agent to infer the partial-update semantics from the nullable defaults.
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 ('Update'), identifies the resource ('metadata for an exact playlist ID'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create, add/remove, reorder, and sorting. It also mentions a unique verification behavior, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 frames the tool for updating metadata of an existing playlist via its ID, which is distinct from creating playlists or managing tracks. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternative tools, so 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral caveats beyond annotations: 'Preview URL evidence may be absent and no full audio is returned.' This warns about possible missing fields and clearly scopes the output, which the annotations do not convey.
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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds important caveats. Front-loaded and 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?
For a simple one-param tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main function, expected output type, and key limitations. It could mention how to obtain the episode ID (e.g., via other tools), but that is not essential for invoking this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does state that the tool works 'for one exact Spotify episode ID', giving some meaning to episode_id. However, it does not specify the ID format, source, or how to validate it. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('typed metadata for one exact Spotify episode ID'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like spotify_podcast_show_episodes (which lists episodes) and spotify_podcast_show (show metadata) by emphasizing 'exact episode ID' and 'no full audio is returned'.
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 usage is implied: use when you have an exact episode ID and need metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'use spotify_podcast_show_episodes to discover episode IDs'). No clear exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'typed details' and a 'canonical Spotify link', which is useful but does not go beyond annotations into side effects, errors, or rate limits. This is adequate 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all necessary semantic details. No extraneous words or repetition of schema information.
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 simple (one parameter, read-only, idempotent) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return fields. It provides the key constraint (exact ID) and result shape. Could be slightly more complete by mentioning possible failure modes, but is generally sufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that show_id must be an exact ID (not a name) and refers to a show, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the parameter is self-explanatory from its name, and the description provides minimal extra detail.
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 a specific action ('Return typed details and a canonical Spotify link') on a specific resource ('one exact show ID'), which distinguishes it from siblings like spotify_podcast_show_episodes and spotify_podcast_discover. The verb and object are precise 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one exact show ID' implicitly tells the agent this tool requires a known ID and is not for searching or discovery. While no explicit alternatives are named, the context from sibling names and the description gives clear usage context without exclusions.
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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description's main contribution is the phrase 'one bounded page,' which tells the user the tool returns only a single page of results rather than the entire library. It also specifies 'current user's library,' adding scope clarity. This goes beyond the annotations and is useful for setting expectations about pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's function, no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and pagination behavior, and the output schema handles return value details. No additional context (e.g., auth caveats, rate limits) is necessary here, so the description is complete for the tool's 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters, but it does not mention 'limit' or 'offset' at all. It only hints at pagination via 'bounded page,' without explaining how limit and offset control the page or that they have defaults and constraints. The parameter names are reasonably intuitive, but the description adds no semantics beyond what the schema fields already show.
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 returns a page of shows saved in the current user's library. The verb 'return' combined with the resource 'shows' and scope 'current user's library' precisely identifies the operation, and the name and title reinforce the purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spotify_saved_tracks or spotify_saved_episodes.
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 this tool is for fetching saved shows for the current user, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools for different library types, providing an explicit pointer (e.g., 'use this for shows, spotify_saved_tracks for tracks') would strengthen guidance. The usage context is clear but only implied.
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds that this performs an exact-match library containment check, but it does not describe output format or authentication needs. No contradiction with 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys all essential information without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple check tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter), has a rich annotation profile, and has an output schema. The description sufficiently covers purpose and the exact-match behavior; return values are already handled by the output schema. No important gaps remain for this low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines album_ids as an array of strings, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by specifying 'exact Spotify album IDs' and the library context, clarifying that these are IDs for albums and that the check is exact-match. This adds semantic value beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') paired with a clear resource ('exact Spotify album IDs') and scope ('saved in the user's library'). This clearly distinguishes it from listing or mutation tools like spotify_saved_albums or spotify_album_library_save.
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 mention of 'exact' album IDs implies this is for boolean membership checks when you already have specific album IDs, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like spotify_library_contains or spotify_saved_albums. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
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 annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already disclose safety. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns the current state of devices, not just a list of names, which is useful but minimal. No contradiction with 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, focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameter-less listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what is listed and the additional state information, making it complete in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%. With no params to document, the description need not add parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 4 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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('available Spotify Connect devices') and scope ('their current state'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on device discovery, which is unique among the listed tools.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer that this tool is used to see available devices, likely to target playback commands. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like spotify_status or spotify_play, nor any 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the tool re-reads the saved state for verification. This goes beyond the annotations and gives insight into the tool's execution flow, though it does not cover edge cases like invalid IDs.
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, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase adds value ('exact', 're-read their state for verification'). No redundancy or fluff.
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 single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action and verification. It doesn't need to explain return values (output schema exists), but it could have provided more explicit usage guidelines or parameter format details. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description only says 'exact Spotify track IDs,' which is nearly tautological given the parameter name track_ids. It does not explain ID format, constraints, or error behavior, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('Liked Songs'), and adds the verification behavior ('re-read their state'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_library_remove or spotify_library_contains.
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 the use case: when you have specific Spotify track IDs to save to Liked Songs. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the action is sufficiently specific that an agent can infer when to select it.
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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it caps results at 10 per type, returns typed results (shows vs episodes), and provides canonical Spotify links. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 zero wasted words. It states the action, scope, result cap, result types, and link format 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?
The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally. The description fully captures the core behavior and constraints. It could mention pagination via offset, but given the output schema and simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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 parameter meanings. It hints at the limit's cap ('at most 10') but provides no explanation for the query parameter beyond the verb 'search', and completely omits the offset parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory but the description does not add sufficient detail for a schema with no 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 tool searches Spotify shows and podcast episodes together, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like spotify_search by emphasizing the combined search of both podcast content types, and from spotify_podcast_show/episode by covering both in one call.
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 when you want to search both shows and episodes simultaneously. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'together' phrasing implies a specific use case that differentiates it from single-type podcast tools.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about display-readiness and the need to filter results for the user, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 core action, and every word earns its place. No redundant or explanatory fluff.
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 presence of an output schema and self-explanatory annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (call data tools first, pass filtered results). It doesn't detail item construction or edge cases, but for a simple rendering tool with a rich input schema, it is sufficiently complete.
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 description does not explain the parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. While the schema's property names and the nested card description provide some hints, the tool description fails to clarify how to populate 'title' or 'items' or what constitutes a valid display-ready result.
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 renders a display-ready list of Spotify entities, using the specific verb 'render' and resource 'display-ready list'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch, search, or modify Spotify data, 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Call data tools first') and a clear instruction on what to pass ('only the results the user should see'). It implies this is the final step in a workflow, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds that it checks 'local' configuration and authentication, which is useful context but does not elaborate on return behavior or external interactions. It adds some value beyond annotations without being 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, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of annotations covering safety, and an output schema (as indicated), the description is sufficiently complete. It tells users exactly what the tool checks, and the output schema will handle return details. There are no gaps for this type of tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly avoids inventing any. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, as there is nothing missing.
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 specific function: 'Check whether local Spotify configuration and authentication work.' It uses a precise verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spotify_devices or spotify_now_playing, which focus on other aspects. This is a unique health-check purpose.
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 as a preliminary verification for other Spotify operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool comparison is provided, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.
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 declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the deterministic nature and clarifying this is local curation, not Spotify personalization. It does not contradict 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?
Two concise sentences with a clear front-loaded action and a clarifying note. No redundant information; every word earns its 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?
With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's inputs (optional limit) and behavior (sources, determinism). It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., whether Liked Songs sample can be empty), but this is a minor gap given the simple 1-parameter 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. While the schema provides type and constraints, the description fails to explain how 'limit' applies to the output. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.
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 ('Build') and clearly states the resource ('deterministic local rediscovery suggestions') and data sources (top tracks, recent plays, stratified Liked Songs sample). It also distinguishes from 'Spotify personalization', making the tool's unique scope clear among siblings.
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: this is for local, deterministic rediscovery rather than Spotify's personalization. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full usage guideline.
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 declare it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that the adjustment is clamped from 0 to 100 percent and is relative to current volume, which are behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.
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 sentence that directly states the action and constraint with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and 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?
The tool is simple with two parameters, one required. The description covers the core behavior and clamp constraint. With an output schema present and annotations providing safety profile, the description is sufficient for selection and invocation, though it could mention the optional device_id default behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the adjustment is relative and clamped, giving meaning to the 'adjustment' parameter. However, it does not describe the 'device_id' parameter beyond referring to 'selected device', and the schema already provides min/max for adjustment. This is moderate compensation for a low-coverage 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 uses the specific verb 'increase or decrease' and identifies the resource 'Spotify playback volume' with scope 'relative to the selected device's current volume'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling spotify_set_volume, which likely sets absolute volume.
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 implies this tool is for relative volume adjustments by stating 'relative to the selected device's current volume', contrasting with an absolute setter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it has clear context but no explicit exclusions.
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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool will 'verify the resulting state once' after removal, which is not captured in the annotations. It also confirms the destructive nature via 'Remove'. No contradiction with 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 core action ('Remove exact Spotify album IDs') and appends a concise behavioral note. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 removal tool with one parameter, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose and adds the verification behavior. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint) and simple scope make that acceptable.
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 has one self-explanatory parameter, album_ids, with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'exact Spotify album IDs' reinforces the parameter's meaning and adds the nuance of exact ID matching, but it does not describe the array structure or constraints. Given the low coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying the semantic of the parameter, but it relies on the parameter name for structure.
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 ('Spotify album IDs'), and the scope ('through the current shared library endpoint'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_library_remove (which likely handles tracks). The word 'exact' further clarifies that it operates on specific IDs, not names or search results.
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: it is for removing specific album IDs via the library endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the album-specific wording implicitly differentiates it from general library removal. The 'verify the resulting state once' provides a procedural hint, though it does not specify when not to use it.
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 this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool re-reads state after removal for verification, which is not captured by the annotations. No contradictions.
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 wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the action and its verification.
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 covers the core operation and its verification step, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the availability of annotations and output schema. It does not delve into edge-case behavior, but that is not critical here.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the sole source explaining track_ids. It clarifies they are Spotify track IDs and that they must be exact, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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?
Clearly states the tool removes exact Spotify track IDs from Liked Songs, with a specific verb-resource pairing and the added verification step. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_library_save (adds) and spotify_album_library_remove (removes 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 the tool is used when you have exact track IDs to remove from Liked Songs and want verification. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this over alternatives or mention exclusions like album removal.
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 provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral detail by stating it 'verify[ies] that it is no longer saved' after removal. It also discloses the platform limitation that permanent deletion is not exposed, giving the agent a clearer mental model of the operation's postconditions.
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 action and verification step, followed by a relevant caveat. No extraneous words or redundancy. It is efficiently structured and 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?
For a one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action, the verification step, and an important platform constraint. It does not explain return values (likely covered by the output schema) or explicitly contrast with similar removal tools, which is a minor gap but not critical given the simplicity of the 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 input schema defines playlist_id as a required string with minLength 1, but provides no descriptive text. The description adds the qualifier 'exact', implying the ID must precisely match rather than be a name or partial string. This is some added meaning, but with a single simple parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description could have provided more detail about the expected format or source of the ID.
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 with a specific verb ('Remove'), identifies the target resource ('an exact playlist ID'), and scopes it to 'the current user's library'. It also reinforces that this is an unfollow operation rather than permanent deletion, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_library_remove or spotify_playlist_remove.
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 establishes clear context: use this tool when you want to remove a specific playlist from the user's saved libraries. It also notes that Spotify does not expose permanent playlist deletion, implying this is the appropriate alternative. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or state when not to use them, 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about determinism and full-history spanning, which goes beyond the structured hints. No 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by usage context. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a clear purpose, explicit usage context, and an output schema (so return values need no explanation). The description covers the essential distinctions and constraints for an agent to select and use it appropriately. No significant 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the sample_size parameter or explain its role in the sample. While the schema provides default/min/max, the description should have compensated by explaining how sample_size affects the deterministic sample. The omission is a 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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('Liked Songs'), and a distinct scope ('deterministic sample spanning the full history'). This distinguishes it from siblings like spotify_saved_tracks, which likely returns all saved tracks, and spotify_recently_played.
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?
It explicitly gives a use case ('for long-term taste and rediscovery') and contrasts with an alternative ('instead of reading only the newest page'). However, it doesn't name the specific sibling tool (e.g., spotify_saved_tracks), so it's clear but not fully explicit.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral constraint of returning at most 10 results per call, which is not evident from the schema alone and helps set expectations for pagination.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a useful behavioral detail. 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with annotations and output schema, covers the essential scope: searchable types, result limit, and safety. It misses the offset/pagination detail, but this is a minor gap since output schema explains return values and the tool is relatively simple.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains item_type by listing the allowed types and implicitly explains limit via 'at most 10 results'. However, it does not clarify the 'query' parameter (though less necessary for a search tool) or the 'offset' parameter for pagination, leaving some semantics ambiguous.
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 ('search') and resource ('Spotify') and enumerates the exact types of results: tracks, albums, artists, playlists, podcast episodes, or shows. This clearly distinguishes it from library-specific or playback-related sibling 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 for when to use the tool (searching across multiple Spotify item types) and implicitly excludes use cases like library management or playback control. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives.
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 declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description adds value by noting the paginated nature of the result. It does not go into deeper behavioral details like rate limits or auth, but for a simple read operation this is 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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it extremely efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only 3 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description sufficiently communicates the core behavior for this level of complexity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'paginated page', hinting at limit/offset, and 'exact' clarifies album_id, but it doesn't provide full semantic detail for each parameter. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, so the meaning is still attainable.
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 returns a paginated page of tracks for a specific Spotify album ID. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('tracks'), and the scope ('exact Spotify album ID') distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_albums or spotify_search.
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 the tool is for use with an exact album ID, providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as safe/read-only/idempotent. The description adds the behavioral detail of returning a single bounded page, which clarifies pagination behavior. It also scopes to the current user's library, providing context beyond 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?
Single sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or extracted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavior. It does not need to explain return values (output schema exists) and the scope is clear.
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 0% and the description does not directly mention limit/offset. However, 'bounded page' implies pagination, and the schema provides clear names, defaults, and constraints for the two parameters, offering minimal but adequate compensation.
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 'Return' and the resource 'episodes saved in the current user's library,' and specifies 'one bounded page' indicating pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like spotify_saved_tracks or spotify_saved_albums by resource type.
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 usage context (fetch saved episodes) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The title and description make it clear when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools for tracks or albums, but explicit when-not guidance is absent.
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?
The description explicitly states that provider failures, missing providers, missing fields, and material conflicts remain explicit, adding meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld). This tells the agent to expect surfaced errors or discrepancies, not silent degradation.
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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The first states the core purpose; the second reveals key behavior. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its 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?
The description is adequate for a simple read-only comparison tool with an output schema and strong annotations. It covers both purpose and error behavior, though it could be more explicit about output structure (handled by the output schema) and ID scope. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that track_ids are 'exact' and central to the comparison, but it does not clarify ID format (e.g., Spotify URI vs. base62 ID) or which provider's IDs are expected. The meaning is partially conveyed but not fully detailed.
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 compares Spotify and ReccoBeats readings for exact track IDs, with a specific verb (compare) and resources (Spotify/ReccoBeats readings, track IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling audio analysis tools by naming the secondary data source ReccoBeats, 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 implies usage when exact track IDs are available and comparison between Spotify and ReccoBeats readings is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear without exclusions.
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by revealing that albums are fetched through a singular endpoint and that unknown IDs are reported separately, which is behavioral context not present in the 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?
Two concise sentences pack all necessary information. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second adds a key behavioral detail. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the core operation and edge-case behavior (unknown IDs) without requiring additional explanation.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies that 'exact Spotify album IDs' are expected and that unknown IDs are handled separately. This adds meaning to the album_ids parameter beyond its raw schema definition, though it doesn't specify ID format or additional constraints beyond what schema provides.
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 'Return' and resource 'typed details for exact Spotify album IDs', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_album_tracks (tracks of an album) or spotify_saved_albums (user's saved albums). It unambiguously tells the agent what this 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for exact Spotify album IDs' implies usage when you have specific album IDs and need details. It also mentions 'unknown IDs are reported separately', giving behavior context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial detail: it explicitly returns missing tracks/fields, field-level provenance, retained conflicts, and user overrides, and specifies the auto-mode fallback condition. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.
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, each serving a clear purpose: main action, return contents, and source behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no redundant or filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, key input semantics, expected output details, and provider fallback logic. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that track_ids are exact Spotify IDs, explaining the 'auto' source fallback behavior, and mentioning user overrides. It does not detail each override field, but the schema provides constraints and descriptions for those nested properties.
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 gets typed audio measurements for specific Spotify track IDs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spotify_audio_compare and spotify_audio_audit by focusing on raw measurements and detailed return metadata (missing tracks, provenance, conflicts, overrides).
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 audio features but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives context on the 'source' parameter fallback behavior, but no direct guidance on tool selection versus sibling tools.
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?
Given the annotations already declare destructive and non-read-only behavior, the description adds valuable context: it specifies that removal is exact (IDs or URIs), explains how snapshot_id locks to a specific version, and warns that a missing returned snapshot is 'explicitly ambiguous'. These details go beyond the structured annotations and help the agent interpret responses correctly.
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 core action, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. There is no fluff or repetition of the title or schema.
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 destructive mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances (exact matching, snapshot versioning, ambiguity) without needing to explain return values. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the annotations cover the destructive nature. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining item_ids_or_uris as 'track IDs or track/episode URIs' and snapshot_id as a version target. The playlist_id parameter is not explicitly described but is obvious from the tool name and title. This coverage is sufficient for the two non-obvious parameters, though it could have also mentioned the 100-item array limit.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Remove exact Spotify track IDs or track/episode URIs', which clearly indicates the action and target. The tool name and title reinforce that this removes items from a playlist, distinguishing it from siblings like spotify_playlist_reorder and spotify_library_remove.
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 mentions using snapshot_id to target an exact playlist version, providing a concrete usage instruction. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or include exclusion criteria. The intended use is clear from the title and name, but no explicit alternatives are given.
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 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martin-gomola/spotify-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/martin-gomola/spotify-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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'

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