Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

find_duplicate_playlists

Scan Spotify playlists to identify exact or near-duplicate track sets, using configurable thresholds for similarity.

Instructions

Scan your playlists for exact and near-duplicate track sets. Exact = identical URI sets (order-insensitive); near = Jaccard overlap >= threshold. Read-only. Also covers: find_duplicates_in_playlist, find_duplicate_tracks_across_playlists — See also: find_duplicates_in_playlist, find_duplicate_tracks_across_playlists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it
scan_capNoMax items walked per playlist (default fetchAllCap)
thresholdNoJaccard threshold for near-duplicates (default 0.85)
max_playlistsNoHow many playlists to scan (default 50, max 100)
response_formatNo'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API objectconcise

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.28.0
    • 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"
+}
  2. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is valuable since no annotations are provided. It also defines the exact/near matching semantics clearly. However, the input schema includes a dry_run parameter that says it describes 'what would change' despite the read-only claim, creating potential confusion about whether the tool can mutate state; the description does not reconcile this.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The main behavior is front-loaded in a clear sentence, but the ending is redundant: 'Also covers: find_duplicates_in_playlist, find_duplicate_tracks_across_playlists — See also: find_duplicates_in_playlist, find_duplicate_tracks_across_playlists' repeats the same two sibling names. This repetition wastes space and could confuse rather than aid tool selection.

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?

The description covers the core scanning behavior, read-only status, and matching definitions, making it minimally usable. But with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe what the tool returns, how response_format affects output, or what happens when scan limits are reached, leaving gaps for an agent deciding how to interpret results.

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 parameters are already well documented in structured form. The description adds conceptual meaning for the threshold parameter by explaining Jaccard overlap, but it does not provide additional semantics for dry_run, scan_cap, max_playlists, or response_format beyond what the schema already offers.

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: scanning playlists for exact and near-duplicate track sets. It goes beyond the name by defining exact as order-insensitive identical URI sets and near as Jaccard overlap above a threshold, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many playlist-related siblings.

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 description says it 'also covers' find_duplicates_in_playlist and find_duplicate_tracks_across_playlists, implying the tool can serve those use cases. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over those siblings or what each sibling does differently, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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