Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

audiobook_progress

Get an audiobook's listening progress: total chapters, played count, current chapter, and percent complete in one summary.

Instructions

Audiobook progress rollup: chapters total, played count, current chapter, percent complete. Quota: 🟡 2 GETs (audiobook + chapters).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNoMarket, e.g. 'US'
audiobook_idYesAudiobook ID
response_formatNo'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API objectconcise

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.28.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / market / description
      Previous value: -"Market"New value: +"Market, e.g. 'US'"
    • addedInput schema / properties / market / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Za-z]{2}$"
  2. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool performs 2 GET calls (audiobook + chapters) and reports the quota cost. It lists the output fields but doesn't cover error behavior or exact response formatting, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no waste: the first states what the tool returns, the second states quota cost. It avoids repeating schema content and is easily parsed by an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Without an output schema, the description names all key return fields and the underlying API calls. It doesn't clarify the precise semantics of 'played count' or 'percent complete', but combined with the schema's response_format documentation this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents audiobook_id, market, and response_format, so no compensation is required.

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 names the resource ('audiobook progress') and the exact metrics returned: chapters total, played count, current chapter, percent complete. 'Rollup' conveys aggregation, which differentiates it from raw chapter-list tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and direct contrast to sibling audiobook_library_progress.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_audiobook, get_audiobook_chapters, or audiobook_library_progress. The quota note is a cost constraint, not a usage rule or exclusion.

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