Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

search_market_diff

Run a search in two markets and compare the result sets to reveal regional availability differences.

Instructions

Same query run in two markets with the result sets diffed — availability/regional insight in one card. Quota: 🟡 2 GET /search calls (one per market).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoResults per page, 1–10 (Feb-2026 /search cap). Default: 5
queryYesSearch query
typesNoTypes to search (up to 2). Default: ['track']
market_aYesFirst market code, e.g. 'US'
market_bYesSecond market code, e.g. 'GB'
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 changedv1.28.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / market_a / maxLength
      Removed value: -2
    • removedInput schema / properties / market_a / minLength
      Removed value: -2
    • addedInput schema / properties / market_a / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Za-z]{2}$"
    • removedInput schema / properties / market_b / maxLength
      Removed value: -2
    • removedInput schema / properties / market_b / minLength
      Removed value: -2
    • addedInput schema / properties / market_b / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Za-z]{2}$"
  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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool makes 2 GET /search calls (quota: 🟡), one per market, and that results are diffed into a card. This adds meaningful operational context beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose first and the quota cost second, with no filler. Every word earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the output shape ('one card') and the operational cost. It does not elaborate on how the diff is rendered or edge cases, but for a read-oriented comparison tool with fully documented parameters, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that two market codes are compared, which is the baseline expectation.

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 exactly what the tool does: runs the same query in two markets and diffs the result sets to surface availability/regional differences. The 'one card' output and the explicit two-market scope clearly distinguish it from plain search_market_diff siblings like search and market_availability.

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 clearly implies the use case: comparing search availability or regional insight between two markets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool over the many search/market siblings.

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