Add tracks to a Spotify playlist using the playlist ID and track URIs, optionally at a specific position.
Add tracks to a playlist
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uris | Yes | Array of Spotify track URIs to add | |
| position | No | Position to insert tracks (default: end of playlist) | |
| playlist_id | Yes | Spotify playlist ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about required OAuth scopes, whether duplicate URIs are added twice, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible — all relevant for a mutation tool that alters user data.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a simple three-parameter operation. It is not padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover at least authentication expectations, duplicate handling, and the effect of the position parameter. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps an agent would need in order to call it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so playlist_id, uris, and position are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.
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?
States a specific verb (add) and resource (tracks to a playlist), which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like spotify_remove_from_playlist and spotify_create_playlist. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spotify_reorder_playlist_tracks or spotify_create_playlist, nor any prerequisites (authentication, playlist ownership). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.