Skip to main content
Glama
NovaLux12

SpotifyMCP

by NovaLux12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

upload_playlist_cover

Set a new playlist cover by uploading a base64-encoded JPEG; ensure the ugc-image-upload scope is enabled, or Spotify rejects the request with 403.

Instructions

Replace a playlist's cover image with a base64-encoded JPEG. Requires the ugc-image-upload scope on the Spotify developer dashboard app (plus playlist-modify-public/private); without it Spotify rejects the upload with 403.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoPreview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it
jpeg_base64YesBase64-encoded JPEG file contents (max 256 KB decoded)
playlist_idYesPlaylist ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.26.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Preview only: validate inputs and describe exactly what would change without performing it",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool mutates a playlist cover, requires specific OAuth scopes, and fails with 403 if the scope is missing. While this adds meaningful context about authentication and failure modes, it does not elaborate on side effects beyond replacement or other behaviors such as idempotency, rate limits, or the dry_run parameter's behavior, which the schema does describe but the description does not reinforce.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the essential prerequisite and failure condition. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what is required (scopes), and a specific failure mode. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and does not mention the dry_run parameter, but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 not add meaning beyond the schema: it restates that the image is a base64-encoded JPEG and that playlist_id identifies the target, but the schema already contains these details. No supplementary parameter context, such as size constraints beyond the schema or format nuances, is provided in the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a playlist's cover image with a base64-encoded JPEG.' This clearly identifies the mutation operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like clone_playlist_cover or get_playlist_cover, so while the purpose is clear, the differentiation must be inferred from the name and context.

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 when to use the tool (to replace a playlist cover) and provides a critical prerequisite: the required ugc-image-upload scope plus playlist-modify-public/private, warning about 403 rejection. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or describe alternatives such as get_playlist_cover for retrieval or clone_playlist_cover for copying an existing cover, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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