lms-mcp

play_favorite

Play a favorite item on a specified player by providing the player ID and the favorite item ID.

Instructions

Play a favorite by item ID on a player

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>",
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "play_favorite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`playerId`	Yes	Player ID to play favorite on
`itemId`	Yes	Favorite item ID (the "id" field from get_favorites)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description says 'play' which implies a state change, and the annotation readOnlyHint=false confirms it is not read-only. However, no additional behavioral details are given (e.g., whether playback replaces current, if player must be online, or return value).

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 unnecessary words. It efficiently captures the essential action.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the core functionality, though a bit more context about the result (e.g., 'starts playback') would enhance completeness.

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 100% with inline descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 (play), the resource (favorite), and the context (on a player by item ID). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like play_app_item or play_track, but the term 'favorite' provides some 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., play_track, play_app_item). The description does not mention prerequisites like having retrieved favorites via get_favorites.

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