get_artistArtist record: name, genres, popularity, followers, images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artist_id | Yes | Spotify artist ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Artist ID | |
| name | No | Artist name | |
| genres | No | Genre tags | |
| images | No | ||
| followers | No | ||
| popularity | No | Popularity 0-100 | |
| external_urls | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "artist_id": "1Xyo4u8uISC60aNvD2MZpP"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Artist record with name, genres, popularity, followers, images",
+ "properties": {
+ "external_urls": {
+ "properties": {
+ "spotify": {
+ "description": "Spotify artist URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "followers": {
+ "properties": {
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total followers",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "genres": {
+ "description": "Genre tags",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Artist ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "images": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "height": {
+ "description": "Image height pixels",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Image URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "width": {
+ "description": "Image width pixels",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Artist name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "popularity": {
+ "description": "Popularity 0-100",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context like error handling, authorization needs, or special side effects; it only lists return fields, which are already in the output schema.
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 a single, front-loaded fragment that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return contents without redundant words. Every element earns its place, making it appropriately 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 simple read-only tool with full schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly conveys the return fields, and the title and sibling names provide enough context for selection. Missing explicit usage comparisons are the main gap, but given simplicity, the overall completeness is strong.
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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (artist_id as 'Spotify artist ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description contributes no additional meaning or usage detail about the parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly identifies the resource (artist record) and lists key fields (name, genres, popularity, followers, images), distinguishing it from siblings like get_artist_top_tracks. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', instead relying on the title to convey the action.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_artist_top_tracks or get_album. The description merely states what the record contains, leaving the agent to infer applicability without clear context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set is a chaotic mix of Spotify music tools and an extensive Pipeworx data querying system, with no clear separation. Tools like 'ask_pipeworx', 'ask_pipeworx_grounded', and 'deep_research' have overlapping querying purposes, while unrelated tools from prediction markets and company research further muddy the boundaries. An agent would struggle to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: Spotify tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'get_album', 'search'), while Pipeworx tools use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research'). Additionally, some tools have vague names like 'process' or 'run' that could apply to anything. The lack of a unified naming scheme makes the set feel disjointed.
With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Spotify' implies a focused music service. The majority of tools are unrelated to Spotify (e.g., Pipeworx queries, Polymarket bets, dependency scanning), making the tool count feel inflated and inappropriate for the stated domain. A more focused set would be far more coherent.
If this is a Spotify server, it is severely incomplete: it lacks playlist management, user actions, and recommendation features beyond top tracks. The inclusion of dozens of unrelated tools (financial data, prediction markets, package analysis) suggests the server has no clear purpose, leaving it neither complete for Spotify nor for any other single domain.