Skip to main content
Glama
belljustin

Spotify Model Context Protocol

by belljustin

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: create_playlist makes new playlists, get_track_uris looks up song metadata, and update_playlist modifies existing playlists. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, eliminating any ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_playlist, get_track_uris, update_playlist) with clear, descriptive names. There are no deviations in style or convention across the set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a Spotify integration, lacking operations like searching for playlists, deleting playlists, or managing user profiles. While the tools cover basic playlist creation and updating, the scope is limited compared to typical music service APIs.

    Completeness2/5

    There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a Spotify domain. Missing are tools for reading or listing existing playlists, deleting playlists, searching for tracks or artists beyond URI lookup, and user-related operations. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common Spotify tasks.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available
  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
      "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
      "maintainers": [
        "your-github-username"
      ]
    }

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies mutation ('update') but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. The parameter explanations are structured in a list format, making it easy to scan, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details into the opening sentence.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context like authentication needs, error handling, return values, and usage scenarios, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

    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?

    The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the meaning of all 5 parameters (e.g., 'playlist_id' as Spotify ID, 'track_uris' as replacement list) and clarifies optionality, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

    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 verb 'update' and resource 'Spotify playlist's details and/or tracks', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_playlist' beyond the obvious 'existing' vs 'new' difference, missing explicit differentiation.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_playlist' or 'get_track_uris'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing playlist ownership or specific permissions, and doesn't mention any exclusions or best practices.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates a new playlist and adds tracks'. It lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent, which are critical for a mutation tool.

    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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' list that efficiently details parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters adequately but lacks critical context like return values, error cases, or side effects. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

    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?

    The description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'name: Name of the playlist', 'public: Whether the playlist should be public'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies defaults and optionality, compensating well for the schema gap.

    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 verb 'Create' and resource 'new playlist on Spotify', specifying that tracks are added to it. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_playlist' by focusing on creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_track_uris'.

    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 'update_playlist' or 'get_track_uris'. It mentions adding tracks but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing track URIs first) or contextual constraints, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it performs a lookup operation (implied read-only), handles multiple songs via a list, skips unfound songs (partial success behavior), and returns a list of URIs. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling details, but covers core functionality adequately.

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns with bullet-point-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

    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 1 parameter with no schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the input format, output format, and behavior (skipping unfound songs). It could improve by mentioning authentication requirements or rate limits, but for a lookup tool with simple parameters, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by detailing the 'songs' parameter: it's a list of dictionaries with required 'name' and 'artist' keys, includes an example, and explains the structure. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('Spotify track URIs'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools (create_playlist, update_playlist) by focusing on retrieval rather than playlist manipulation. It explicitly mentions what it does: converting song information into Spotify URIs.

    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 implies usage context by specifying it's for 'a list of songs' and provides an example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or when not to use it. It differentiates from siblings by function, though not with explicit 'use this when...' guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

spotify-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

spotify-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/belljustin/spotify-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server