track_historyGet a track's all-time plays, estimated minutes, first and last play, and monthly plays, combining all editions.
A song's all-time plays, estimated minutes, first and last play, and plays per month, with every edition of it (single, album, remaster) folded together. Takes a track id: use search to find one by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Spotify track id |
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, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it aggregates across every edition (single, album, remaster) rather than just one track release. It stops short of noting auth or pagination, hence not a 5.
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 tight sentences, front-loading the return contents before the id requirement. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical edition list is slightly dense.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including the edition-folding semantics. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor gaps (auth, whether the id must be exact) remain.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'Spotify track id'. The description restates the type and adds the practical guidance on finding an id via search, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully-covered single param.
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?
The description names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns (all-time plays, estimated minutes, first/last play, plays per month), plus the edition-folding behavior. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the analogous sibling artist_history, but an agent reading it knows precisely what this tool produces.
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?
It gives one routing hint ('use search to find one by name'), which covers how to obtain the required id. It does not say when to prefer this over get_plays, daily_play_counts, or artist_history, so alternative selection is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.