get_artist_top_tracksTop tracks for an artist in a market (Spotify recommendation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | ISO market code (default "US") | |
| artist_id | Yes | Spotify artist ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "artist_id": "1Xyo4u8uISC60aNvD2MZpP"
+ },
+ {
+ "artist_id": "1Xyo4u8uISC60aNvD2MZpP",
+ "market": "CA"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Top tracks for an artist in a market (Spotify recommendation)",
+ "properties": {
+ "tracks": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "album": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Album ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Album name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "artists": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Artist ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Artist name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "duration_ms": {
+ "description": "Duration in milliseconds",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Track ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Track name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "popularity": {
+ "description": "Popularity 0-100",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "preview_url": {
+ "description": "30s preview URL or null",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Spotify recommendation' as context, hinting that results come from Spotify's recommendation engine, but it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or rate limits. Since annotations carry most of the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is a simple read operation with comprehensive schema and annotations, plus an output schema exists. The description sufficiently covers the high-level purpose. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the overall context is complete for a tool of this simplicity.
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%, with both 'market' and 'artist_id' clearly documented. The description mentions 'market' but does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema. 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?
The description clearly states the resource ('top tracks for an artist') and the scope ('in a market'), and the verb 'get' is implied by the tool name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_artist (artist details) and get_track (a specific track) by focusing on top 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?
The description gives a clear context: use this to retrieve an artist's top tracks in a given market. It implies the use case but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. No alternatives are named, but the specific phrasing makes the intended usage obvious.
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.