Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spotify Data MCP Server

Spotify Data MCP Server

by eduair94
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Find tracks by ISRC

isrc_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use an ISRC to find matching Spotify tracks and retrieve IDs, names, artists, album, and release date.

Instructions

Find the Spotify track(s) for an ISRC (International Standard Recording Code), e.g. USUG11904206. Returns ids, names, artists, album and release date.

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": {
      "isrc": "<isrc>"
    },
    "name": "isrc_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isrcYes12-character ISRC; spaces and dashes are ignored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations do not: the fields returned (ids, names, artists, album, release date) and the '(s)' hint that one ISRC may resolve to multiple tracks. It does not cover the no-match case.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action and identifier are front-loaded, and the return-field list is appended efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its words on the return shape, which is what an agent most needs here. The only gap is behavior on an unmatched ISRC (empty result vs error), which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the 12-character ISRC with spaces/dashes ignored, so the description's only addition is a concrete example value. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the Spotify track(s) for an ISRC') and pins down the identifier format with a concrete example. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling 'search' by being an exact-identifier lookup, but never names the sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for when it already has an ISRC. There is no explicit when-to-use vs 'search' or 'get_tracks', and no guidance on what to do if the lookup fails.

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