Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spotify & TMDB Web MCP Server

Spotify & TMDB Web MCP Server

by Chiru144
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

fetch_soundtrack_tracks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Spotify for a movie’s soundtrack tracks by title, with optional language, release year, or actor filters; fuzzy matching helps find tracks when details are incomplete.

Instructions

Searches Spotify for movie soundtrack tracks using titles, language, release year, or actor name with fuzzy matching.

Args: movie_title: Title of the movie language_name: Optional language filter (e.g. 'Kannada', 'Telugu', 'Hindi', 'English') release_year: Optional movie release year (e.g. '2023') actor_name: Optional actor name to narrow down soundtrack

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "movie_title": "<movie_title>"
    },
    "name": "fetch_soundtrack_tracks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actor_nameNo
movie_titleYes
release_yearNo
language_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: matching is 'fuzzy', meaning partial or approximate titles/actor names are acceptable. What it does not disclose — result caps, ordering, or how Spotify search breadth affects results — is minor for a read-only lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose statement is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a tight Args block with no filler. The raw docstring formatting (indentation, 'Args:') is slightly untidy for agent consumption but costs nothing in clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers inputs adequately, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, it never positions the tool within the surrounding playlist-building workflow or against the sibling search tools, so an agent still has to reason about when this is the right call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely discharges it: each of the four parameters is named, optionality is stated for three of them, and concrete format examples are given ('Kannada', 'Telugu', 'Hindi', 'English'; '2023'). It does not specify matching precedence when multiple filters are supplied, which keeps it short of a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches Spotify for movie soundtrack tracks', and enumerates the matching dimensions (title, language, release year, actor). It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_spotify' or explain why one would use this soundtrack-specific search instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as search_spotify or search_movie_tmdb. The only implied usage signal is the parameter list itself, which suggests this is the soundtrack-lookup path, but the agent must infer that.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools