Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_playlist_following

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether you follow up to 50 Spotify playlists and get each follow status, with unreadable states reported as unknown rather than not followed.

Instructions

Check if you follow 1–50 playlists. Follow state: GET /me/library/contains?uris=spotify:playlist:,… (40/req, 1–2 GETs). Unreadable state reports unknown, never not-followed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playlistsNoCanonical ordered playlists (1–50)
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 changedv3.0.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / playlist_ids
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Deprecated one-release alias supported through v2.0; removed in v2.1. Provide this complete alias or canonical playlists.",
-  "items": {
-    "description": "Playlist ID, spotify:playlist: URI, or Spotify playlist URL; use this reference in the canonical or documented legacy field",
-    "minLength": 1,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "maxItems": 50,
-  "minItems": 1,
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / playlists / description
      Previous value: -"Canonical ordered playlists (1–50), or provide the complete documented legacy alias accepted by this tool"New value: +"Canonical ordered playlists (1–50)"
  2. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.31.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / playlist_ids / description
      Added value: +"Deprecated one-release alias supported through v2.0; removed in v2.1. Provide this complete alias or canonical playlists."
    • addedInput schema / properties / playlist_ids / items / description
      Added value: +"Playlist ID, spotify:playlist: URI, or Spotify playlist URL; use this reference in the canonical or documented legacy field"
    • addedInput schema / properties / playlist_ids / items / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / playlists
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Canonical ordered playlists (1–50), or provide the complete documented legacy alias accepted by this tool",
+  "items": {
+    "description": "Playlist ID, spotify:playlist: URI, or Spotify playlist URL; use this reference in the canonical or documented legacy field",
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 50,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "playlist_ids"
-]
  3. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: batching mechanics (40/req, 1–2 GETs) and, importantly, the error semantics 'Unreadable state reports unknown, never not-followed' — a valuable non-obvious contract. Lacks any note on output shape, but the key edge-case behavior is disclosed.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then the operational detail and the safety guarantee. No padding; each clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the returned state (followed / unknown) and the batch size, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gap: it does not describe what fields accompany each playlist in the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the array bound ('1–50 playlists') but adds no format guidance for the ID/URI/URL items or the response_format enum beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Check if you follow 1–50 playlists.' The scope (follow-state of playlists) is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling check_following_artists, so an agent can select it without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The batch size (1–50) implies the intended use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., the artist counterpart or follow_playlist). Usage must be inferred from the operation itself.

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