mcp-spotify

get_playlist_items

Fetch full details of every item in a Spotify playlist using its ID or URI, with optional filters for limit, offset, market, and fields.

Instructions

Get full details of the items of a playlist

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_playlist_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The Spotify ID or URI of the playlist
`limit`	No	Optional. Maximum number of items to return (1-100)
`fields`	No	Optional. Filters for the query
`market`	No	Optional. An ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code
`offset`	No	Optional. Index of the first item to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.4Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only) but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), error conditions, or what 'full details' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, how results are structured, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. The agent would need to guess at important behavioral aspects.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying the 'id' parameter is for playlists. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Get full details') and resource ('items of a playlist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_playlist' (which gets playlist metadata) and 'get_playlist_tracks' (which might be more specific), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_playlist_tracks' or 'get_playlist'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.