Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

spotify_doctor

Diagnose Spotify integration issues by checking token validity, scopes, Premium access, rate limits, and configuration. Provides read-only checks and live account probe for product and country.

Instructions

Run local diagnostics: token presence/expiry, auth-time scopes vs write tools enabled by active toolsets, Premium gating notes, rate-limit cooldown, and a config snapshot. Read-only, best-effort live account probe for product/country when network available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verboseNoInclude per-check technical detail lines in the prose output
response_formatNoResponse format: concise (default) returns human-readable text, detailed adds metadata, json returns structured data

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.28.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response format: concise (default) returns human-readable text, detailed adds metadata, json returns structured data",
+  "enum": [
+    "concise",
+    "detailed",
+    "json"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.26.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Read-only' and 'best-effort live account probe for product/country when network available', which inform the agent about side effects and network dependency. It could add failure behavior when offline, but 'best-effort' already tempers expectations.

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 sentences deliver maximum relevant information with zero filler. The primary action and scope come first, followed by a compact comma-separated list of diagnostic categories and the read-only/network caveat.

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 compensates by enumerating the diagnostic checks and behaviors. It names the key check categories, the live-probe behavior, and the config snapshot. It does not explicitly describe the final report structure, but the prose/response_format parameter and listed checks make the tool sufficiently complete 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 both parameters (verbose and response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Run local diagnostics') and enumerates concrete diagnostic areas: token presence/expiry, scopes vs write tools, Premium gating, rate-limit cooldown, config snapshot. This is clear and distinguishes it from feature-specific tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with overlapping siblings like scope_audit or quota_probe.

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 description implies usage as a general health-check/diagnostic tool and states it is read-only and best-effort, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives such as scope_audit, quota_probe, or device_health. There is no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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