Retrieve your Spotify account's saved tracks, also known as Liked Songs. Specify an optional limit to control the number of results, or omit it to fetch your entire saved library.
Get the current user's saved ("Liked Songs") tracks. Omit limit for all of them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait: omitting limit returns all tracks rather than a default page. But it does not mention read-only behavior, authentication expectations, ordering, or pagination details, so the burden is only partially met.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the limit instruction earns its place because it changes the default behavior of the only parameter.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is returned and how to request all items. The main gaps are the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and broader behavioral context, but these are already reflected in other dimensions.
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. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitting limit returns all tracks, which the schema's bare 'default: null' does not convey. It does not spell out valid integer bounds, but for a single optional limit parameter this is sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current user's saved (
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?
The resource is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool: whenever the current user's saved tracks are needed. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or any when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_playlist_tracks or get_album_tracks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.