Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_saved_counts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get saved Spotify library counts for tracks, albums, shows, episodes, audiobooks, and playlists without paging; unreadable collections are flagged and excluded from totals.

Instructions

Library size snapshot: counts for tracks/albums/shows/episodes/audiobooks/playlists via limit=1 reads — no item paging. The total covers library saves only: playlists are owned and followed collections, so their count is reported alongside the library rows and excluded from the total. A collection that could not be read (rate limited, gated, or erroring) is reported as unreadable with its reason and left out of the total — it is never reported as 0. One attempt per collection: a rate limit is surfaced, not retried. Quota: 6 GETs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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 changedv1.31.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent safety, yet the description discloses a wealth of behavior beyond them: a fixed quota of 6 GETs, one attempt per collection with rate limits surfaced rather than retried, unreadable collections reported with a reason and excluded from totals (never reported as 0), and playlists counted separately from the library total. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the snapshot purpose, then layers in the edge cases. It is dense with clauses, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information (total scope, unreadable handling, quota), so little is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (per-collection counts plus a total), how playlists relate to the total, and how failures appear. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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% and the single response_format enum is fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about response_format, and its limit/quota notes are internal mechanics rather than parameter guidance.

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 ('Library size snapshot: counts for tracks/albums/shows/episodes/audiobooks/playlists') that clearly separates it from the many sibling list/search tools (get_saved_tracks, search_saved_albums, etc.). The agent can tell this returns counts, not items, without opening 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 'no item paging' and 'limit=1 reads' phrasing implies this is the cheap-counts alternative to the listing tools, but it never explicitly names a sibling or states when to prefer this over get_saved_tracks/get_saved_albums. Usage is strongly implied rather than routed.

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