Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_saved_items

Check if Spotify tracks, albums, shows, episodes, or audiobooks are saved in your library. Returns a boolean per URI for up to 50 items.

Instructions

Legacy per-type variant (kept for grandfathered app credentials that lack unified /me/library access). Prefer check_in_library. Check whether items are saved in the user's library. Returns a boolean per URI. Accepts track, album, show, episode, and audiobook URIs. Max 50.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urisYesSpotify URIs to check (accepts tracks, albums, shows, episodes, audiobooks)
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. Changed5 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / uris / description
      Previous value: -"Spotify URIs to check (accepts tracks, albums, shows, episodes, artists, playlists)"New value: +"Spotify URIs to check (accepts tracks, albums, shows, episodes, audiobooks)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / uris / maxItems
      Previous value: -40New value: +50
  2. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return shape ('boolean per URI'), accepted URI types, the 50-item cap, and the legacy/scoped auth context. It does not mention error behavior or ordering, but for a simple check operation the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

The description is compact and information-dense. Every sentence serves a purpose: legacy context, alternative routing, core action, output shape, accepted inputs, and the limit. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (prefer check_in_library).

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 library-check tool, the description covers the core purpose, when to use it, what URIs to pass, the maximum batch size, and the return shape. Since there is no output schema, the 'boolean per URI' note is valuable. Minor gaps like handling of invalid URIs or output ordering are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents the uris, max_results, and response_format parameters. The description mostly repeats what the schema says (URI types and max 50) without adding meaningful new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check whether items are saved in the user's library' and specifies the accepted URI types and output shape ('Returns a boolean per URI'). It also distinguishes itself from the preferred sibling by labeling it a 'Legacy per-type variant' and naming check_in_library, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for 'grandfathered app credentials that lack unified /me/library access', and explicitly says 'Prefer check_in_library'. This tells the agent both when to choose this tool and when to route to an alternative.

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