Retrieve a user's recently played tracks from Spotify. Set an optional limit (1-50) to control the number returned for recent listening history.
Get user's recently played tracks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of tracks to return (default: 20) |
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 burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about the user-scoped auth requirement (user-read-recently-played scope), ordering of results, or whether it is paginated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves key behavior undisclosed.
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 zero waste. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing is redundant or padded.
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 simple one-optional-param read tool this is adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description could reasonably mention what a 'recently played track' entry contains (track plus played-at timestamp) and the auth scope. It covers the core purpose and nothing more.
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%, and the single optional 'limit' param is fully documented with default and bounds in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'Get user's recently played tracks'. The intent is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like spotify_get_saved_tracks and spotify_get_top_items, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. get_saved_tracks, get_top_items), no mention of required OAuth scope, and no exclusions. 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.