Delete a track from a Spotify playlist by specifying the playlist and track, including 'current' for the playing track. This changes the user's library.
Remove a track from one of the user's playlists. Needs playlist and track. Destructive: changes the user's library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | "current" for the playing track, or a track URI or link. | |
| playlist | Yes | Playlist name, ID or link. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description redundantly restates 'Destructive' and adds 'changes the user's library', which offers only a little context beyond the annotation, but nothing on reversibility or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste; the core action and prerequisites come first, the destructive note last.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and required inputs but omits any handling signals like missing-track behavior or undo, leaving a modest but real gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented including the 'current' special value and URI/link formats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource ('Remove a track from one of the user's playlists') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_to_playlist or remove_saved_tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context by stating prerequisites ('Needs playlist and track'), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as add_to_playlist or like_current.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.