Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

saved_tracks_by_artist

List all saved tracks from one artist. Enter an artist name or ID to filter your liked songs and retrieve every saved track by that artist.

Instructions

List your SAVED tracks for one artist ("everything I've saved by X"): resolves the artist ID when given a name, then filters the liked shelf. Quota: 🟡 getAllPages + 1 search (name input).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
artistYesArtist ID/URI, or a name (1 search to resolve)
marketNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 market for the artist search, e.g. 'US'
dry_runNoPreview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it
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. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.28.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / market / description
      Previous value: -"ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 market for the artist search"New value: +"ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 market for the artist search, e.g. 'US'"
    • addedInput schema / properties / market / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Za-z]{2}$"
  2. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It proactively discloses the quota cost (getAllPages + 1 search) and explains the internal resolution-then-filter behavior. This is meaningful transparency beyond the schema, though it does not cover every potential edge case.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loads the core behavior, then appends the quota detail. The parenthetical example 'everything I've saved by X' is useful shorthand, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation logic: what the tool does, how it resolves names, and what quota it consumes. The response_format parameter fills in the output-shape gap, so the definition is reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does reinforce that the artist parameter accepts either a name or an ID and that a name triggers a search, but it does not add much beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List your SAVED tracks for one artist') and clarifies the exact behavioral flow: resolve the artist ID from a name, then filter the liked shelf. This clearly distinguishes it from more generic sibling tools like get_saved_tracks or artist_top_vs_saved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the use case obvious: the user wants 'everything I've saved by X' for a single artist. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can identify when this tool is appropriate.

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