Retrieve a Spotify user's top artists or tracks by time range and limit to analyze their listening habits.
Get user's top artists or tracks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Type of items to get | |
| limit | No | Number of items to return (default: 20) | |
| time_range | No | Time range: short_term (4 weeks), medium_term (6 months), long_term (all time) |
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. It only implies a read via 'Get' and says nothing about required user authorization, which time-range default applies, or how results are ordered/limited. Significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for the surface, though its terseness contributes to the behavioral gaps rather than being a flaw in structure itself.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose auth requirements and return nature, but it does neither. The schema covers inputs fully, yet the definition leaves the agent guessing about permissions and result format.
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 the schema already documents type, limit, and time_range with enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating the artists/tracks choice, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('user's top artists or tracks'), with the artists/tracks duality matching the required enum. It's clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts with related siblings like spotify_get_recently_played or spotify_get_saved_tracks.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives named. The word 'top' implicitly distinguishes it from saved/recently-played siblings, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.