Fetch full track details by Spotify ID. Choose concise, detailed, or raw JSON output to access metadata like title, artist, album, and more.
Get full details for a track by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Spotify track ID | |
| response_format | No | 'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object | concise |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.26.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / response_formatAdded value: +{
+ "default": "concise",
+ "description": "'concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object",
+ "enum": [
+ "concise",
+ "detailed",
+ "json"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get full details.' It does not mention whether the result is a raw API object, prose, or how the response_format parameter affects behavior beyond the schema, nor does it note any rate limits or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple single-track lookup, and the schema fills in response formatting details. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from a brief note about what 'full details' includes and how this differs from sibling tools like get_several_tracks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, including the enum options for response_format. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for a track by ID'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from search_tracks and get_several_tracks, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for looking up a single known track, which gives some context. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_several_tracks, search_tracks, or track_enrichment_batch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.