spotify_statusRetrieves current Spotify account details, token, library size, now playing track, and all Connect devices. Provides a complete snapshot of playback and account status for free accounts.
Account, token, library size, now playing and every Connect device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it does enumerate the scope of what is gathered (including token state, implying auth/diagnostic context), which helps. However it never states this is a read-only aggregate, how many upstream calls it makes, or what happens when unauthenticated — the most decision-relevant facts for an agent.
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?
A single short clause with no filler, and the informational payoff is front-loaded. It is a fragment without a verb, which costs a bit of clarity but keeps it efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape is covered and the description needn't explain it. But given heavy sibling overlap (spotify_session_status, now_playing, list_devices) and no annotations, the description should have clarified the selection boundary; that omission leaves an agent able to call the wrong tool correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste words on nonexistent inputs.
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 is a noun list of returned data (account, token, library size, now playing, devices) rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. It conveys the aggregate/status nature but never distinguishes this from siblings like spotify_session_status, now_playing, and list_devices, which appear to return subsets of the same data.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this aggregate status call versus spotify_session_status, now_playing, or list_devices, all of which overlap significantly. An agent must guess whether this is a diagnostic/dashboard call or a substitute for the narrower tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.