Get the generators tied to a specific playlist by supplying the playlist ID, revealing the media sources that feed it.
Get a playlist's generators.
GET /playlists/{playlistId}/generators
Args: playlist_id: The ID of the playlist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playlist_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the exact HTTP endpoint but no further behavioral context such as pagination, response scope, or potential side effects. It does not contradict 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately short and front-loads the main purpose before the endpoint and parameter details. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but not bloated. No unnecessary sentences are present.
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?
The tool is simple: one required integer parameter, rich safety annotations, and an output schema. An agent can likely invoke it correctly. However, the meaning of 'generators' is left unexplained, and there is no guidance on how it relates to sibling playlist generator tools, leaving a notable completeness 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning. It only repeats 'playlist_id: The ID of the playlist,' which adds little beyond the schema's title and integer type. It does not explain how to obtain the ID, any constraints, or the parameter's role in the request.
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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Get a playlist's generators.' The endpoint path reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_playlists_by_playlist_id_items or get_playlists_by_playlist_id_items_by_generator_id_items, and 'generators' is not explained.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to fetch generator items instead of generators. The only usage signal is implicit in the tool name and endpoint. There are no prerequisites, 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.