lms-mcp

play_track

Play a specific track by its ID on a designated player, enabling precise control over audio playback.

Instructions

Play a specific track by ID

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>",
      "trackId": "<trackId>"
    },
    "name": "play_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`playerId`	Yes	Player ID to control
`trackId`	Yes	Track ID to play

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'play' aligns with a mutation. However, no additional behavioral context is given, such as whether the track starts immediately or replaces the current queue.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices completeness by omitting the playerId requirement. It is adequately structured but not as helpful as it could be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description should at least mention both parameters. It misses playerId, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. But the description only mentions trackId by ID, failing to note the required playerId parameter, which could cause misuse.

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 states 'Play a specific track by ID', which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like play_app_item or play_favorite, which are similar.

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 over alternatives, such as play_url or play_radio_item. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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