Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

library_hygiene

Scan liked tracks read-only to flag almost-complete albums worth saving and solitary singles when you've saved nothing else by that artist. Preview query cost before retrieving data.

Instructions

Read-only album hygiene over your liked tracks: flags near-complete albums worth saving and lone singles with nothing else liked from their artist (low confidence). Album totals come from the /me/tracks walk; a width-bounded per-id GET /albums/{id} fills in the rest. Never mutates. dry_run previews cost.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview cost only.
max_resultsNoMax items to return (default: SPOTIFY_MCP_MAX_ITEMS env or 50)
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 changedv2.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Preview cost only.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.31.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only destructiveHint=false provided, the description carries real extra weight: it declares read-only, 'never mutates', discloses the confidence caveat ('low confidence'), and explains that dry_run previews cost. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It stops at 4 because the return shape and the exact cost/preview semantics are left implicit.

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 tool's purpose before implementation detail, and dry_run/read-only facts are packed tightly into short sentences. The implementation sentence about /me/tracks and /albums/{id} is arguably surplus for tool selection but does earn its place as transparency. Overall efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only, zero-required-param tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers purpose, mutation profile, confidence caveat and cost preview. Nothing critical is missing, though it never describes what a result row looks like or the ordering/limit interaction.

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 already documents dry_run, max_results and response_format with defaults and bounds. The description only reinforces that dry_run previews cost, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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+resource ('Read-only album hygiene over your liked tracks') and enumerates the two findings it surfaces (near-complete albums, lone singles). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like unsave_orphan_tracks or find_duplicate_saved_tracks by the album-completeness angle. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'what' is clear, so when-to-use is implied for a library-audit workflow, but there is no explicit when/when-not or reference to an alternative tool. Nothing tells the agent how this differs operationally from related hygiene tools such as unsave_orphan_tracks.

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