Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_following_artists

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify follow status for up to 50 Spotify artists using IDs or URIs, returning a boolean per artist to confirm if you follow them.

Instructions

Check if the user follows specific artists — this tests FOLLOW state, not library-saved state (for that use check_in_library). Accepts IDs or spotify:artist: URIs. Rows carry {id, uri, follows}; returns a boolean per ID. Max 50.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesArtist IDs, spotify:artist: URIs, or artist URLs; CSV accepted
max_resultsNoMax items to return (default: SPOTIFY_MCP_MAX_ITEMS env or 50)
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 changedv2.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / ids / description
      Previous value: -"Spotify artist IDs to check"New value: +"Artist IDs, spotify:artist: URIs, or artist URLs; CSV accepted"
    • addedInput schema / properties / ids / items / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.31.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.26.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_results
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max items to return (default: SPOTIFY_MCP_MAX_ITEMS env or 50)",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "maximum": 2000,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "concise",
+  "description": "'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object",
+  "enum": [
+    "concise",
+    "detailed",
+    "json"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's added value is describing the output shape ('Rows carry {id, uri, follows}; returns a boolean per ID') and accepted URI formats. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but those are less critical for a read-only, idempotent check.

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 zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, then the distinction from check_in_library, then input formats, then output behavior, then a limit. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with a well-populated schema, the description covers purpose, input, output, and a key alternative. The only gap is that 'Max 50' is ambiguous (input ids vs output count) and max_results can exceed 50, but the schema clarifies ids maxItems=50 and max_results maximum=2000, so it's a minor ambiguity rather than a completeness failure.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema – it only partially restates the ids parameter's accepted formats ('IDs or spotify:artist: URIs') which the schema already documents fully. max_results and response_format semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check if the user follows specific artists') and explicitly distinguishes it from library-saved state by pointing to check_in_library. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like follow_artists, unfollow_artists, and check_playlist_following.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when not to use this tool ('this tests FOLLOW state, not library-saved state') and names the alternative tool (check_in_library). It also describes accepted input formats (IDs or URIs) and a practical limit, giving the agent enough to decide when to call it.

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