Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_playlist_cover

Get a Spotify playlist's cover image URLs by passing its playlist ID. Use the direct links to display playlist artwork anywhere.

Instructions

Get a playlist's cover image URLs

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoAlias for playlist_id, matching get_playlist
max_resultsNoMax items to return (default: SPOTIFY_MCP_MAX_ITEMS env or 50)
playlist_idNoPlaylist ID (or pass it as 'id')
response_formatNo'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API objectconcise

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.26.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for playlist_id, matching get_playlist",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / playlist_id / description
      Previous value: -"Playlist ID"New value: +"Playlist ID (or pass it as 'id')"
    • 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"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "playlist_id"
-]
  2. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it reveals nothing about behavior: no confirmation that this is a safe read, no mention of auth requirements, error behavior, or pagination semantics. The presence of a max_results parameter on a cover-image tool is genuinely surprising (a playlist normally has a single cover) and the description does nothing to explain this quirk.

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 single sentence 'Get a playlist's cover image URLs' is maximally concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. However, for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized — conciseness is achieved by omitting needed context, not by economical coverage of the essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining what the agent will get back and how the tool behaves, but it explains neither. The rich schema covers parameter mechanics, yet the return shape of 'cover image URLs' (single URL vs. array, size variants), the role of max_results, and failure behavior for invalid playlist IDs are all left unspecified. An agent cannot fully predict this tool's behavior from the definition.

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 itself documents all four parameters well, including the id/playlist_id alias relationship and the response_format enum semantics. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, the description need not add parameter detail. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable here, though it misses the opportunity to explain why max_results applies to cover retrieval.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a playlist's cover image URLs.' This is unambiguous and clearly communicates the tool's narrow function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the closely-related siblings get_playlist (which also returns image data as part of playlist details) or compare_playlist_covers / clone_playlist_cover, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description offers zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With roughly 500 siblings — several of which (get_playlist, get_playlist_snapshot, playlist_cover_from_track) overlap with cover-image functionality — the agent receives no help choosing between them. There is no when/when-not context, no exclusions, and no named alternatives.

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