Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

unsave_orphan_tracks

Destructive

Find saved Spotify tracks not in any playlist and optionally unsave them. Previews by default; set dry_run=false to commit.

Instructions

Find saved tracks that appear in no playlist (orphans) and optionally unsave them. Quota: walks library + all playlists (capped). PREVIEWS BY DEFAULT — pass dry_run=false to commit. Removing 10+ orphans additionally requires elicitation confirmation (or SPOTIFY_MCP_CONFIRM=never for automation).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview only: perform the read side and return a PLAN without changing anything. Default true — pass dry_run=false to commit.
scan_capNoMax saved tracks to scan (default fetchAllCap)
max_removeNoMax orphans to remove (default 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 changedv3.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run / default
      Added value: +true
    • changedInput schema / properties / dry_run / description
      Previous value: -"Preview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it"New value: +"Preview only: perform the read side and return a PLAN without changing anything. Default true — pass dry_run=false to commit."
  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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the cost profile (walks library plus all playlists, capped), the safe-by-default preview behavior, the confirmation threshold of 10+ removals, and the SPOTIFY_MCP_CONFIRM=never escape hatch for automation. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before triggering a destructive call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the preview-default rule, then the edge-case confirmation. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains that dry_run returns a PLAN, covering the main return expectation. The detailed shape of the plan and per-track results is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a destructive multi-item tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by reinforcing dry_run's default semantics, framing the plan-only return, and implying that max_remove interacts with the 10+ elicitation threshold. Quota/scoping context for scan_cap is meaningful beyond the schema text.

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 a specific verb and resource with a precise scope: 'Find saved tracks that appear in no playlist (orphans) and optionally unsave them.' This is distinguishable from siblings like find_duplicate_saved_tracks and library_hygiene, which target different conditions.

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?

Clearly explains the operating mode: preview by default, pass dry_run=false to commit, and that removing 10+ orphans requires elicitation. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., remove_from_library or library_hygiene) for a simple single-track removal, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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