Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

clone_playlist_cover

Copy a Spotify playlist cover image from a source playlist to a target playlist, matching artwork without manual uploads.

Instructions

Copy cover image from source playlist to target. Quota: GET images + PUT images (plus image fetch).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it
image_indexNoWhich cover image to copy. Default 0. 0-based index into the playlist's current item order (0 = the first item).
source_playlist_idYesSource playlist ID, URI, or URL
target_playlist_idYesTarget playlist ID, URI, or URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / image_index / description
      Previous value: -"Which cover image to copy (0-based). Default 0"New value: +"Which cover image to copy. Default 0. 0-based index into the playlist's current item order (0 = the first item)."
  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 / image_index / description
      Added value: +"Which cover image to copy (0-based). Default 0"
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_playlist_id / description
      Added value: +"Source playlist ID, URI, or URL"
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_playlist_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_playlist_id / description
      Added value: +"Target playlist ID, URI, or URL"
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_playlist_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
  3. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds genuinely useful context not present in the schema or the single destructiveHint annotation: the quota cost (GET images + PUT images, plus an image fetch). However it does not say whether the target's existing cover is overwritten or what happens on failure, so the mutation behavior stays partly opaque.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the quota note; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical 'plus image fetch' is slightly cryptic but does not bloat the text.

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?

For a simple copy tool with a full-coverage schema and no output schema, the essentials are covered. The remaining gap is the effect on the target's existing cover and any failure/permission behavior, which an agent would want before invoking.

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%, including dry_run and image_index semantics, so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: copy the cover image from a source playlist to a target playlist. It is inherently distinguishable from nearby siblings like get_playlist_cover and upload_playlist_cover, though it never names them or explicitly disambiguates.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives referenced. The quota note is operational cost information, not routing guidance, so an agent still infers on its own when cloning a cover is preferred over uploading one.

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