lms-mcp

clear_playlist

Destructive

Remove all songs from a player's current playlist, emptying the queue for a fresh start.

Instructions

Clear the current playlist

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "playerId": "<playerId>"
    },
    "name": "clear_playlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`playerId`	Yes	Player ID to clear playlist for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description 'Clear' implies destructiveness, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation. No mention of irreversibility, effect on other players, or performance implications.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, for a tool with sibling complexity, slightly more detail could be warranted.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema) and annotations present, the description is minimally sufficient. It defines the action but lacks details on what 'clearing' entails (e.g., does it maintain the playlist object?). Not fully complete for an agent to understand behavior without 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?

The single parameter 'playerId' is fully described in the schema with 'Player ID to clear playlist for'. The description adds no extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Clear the current playlist' uses a clear verb+resource format. It conveys the action of removing all items from a playlist, distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_playlist_item' (removes one item) and 'delete_saved_playlist' (removes the playlist itself). However, it does not explicitly say it empties rather than deletes.

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 like 'delete_playlist_item' or 'delete_saved_playlist'. No prerequisites or context provided. The description lacks any hint of usage scenarios or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.