spotify-mcp-server

add_to_queue

Queue a Spotify track for playback by passing its track URI or ID.

Instructions

Add a track to the user's active Spotify playback queue.

Parameters

uri : str Spotify track URI (spotify:track:<id>) or bare track ID.

Returns

dict {"status": "queued", "uri": "<full_spotify_uri>"}

Raises

spotipy.SpotifyException Propagated if the Spotify API returns a non-2xx response.

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": {
      "uri": "<uri>"
    },
    "name": "add_to_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uri`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('{"status": "queued", "uri": "<full_spotify_uri>"}') and raises spotipy.SpotifyException for non-2xx responses. It also notes the 'active' queue, hinting at a device requirement, though it stops short of detailing preconditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Parameters, Returns, and Raises, and is appropriately concise—each section adds necessary information without fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter), the description covers the core behaviors: the action, parameter format, return payload, and error conditions. It lacks explicit preconditions (e.g., active device), but the mention of 'active queue' partially addresses this. Overall it is sufficient for basic 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 description explains that 'uri' can be a full Spotify track URI (spotify:track:<id>) or a bare track ID, adding format details beyond the schema's bare string type. This is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%.

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 'Add a track to the user's active Spotify playback queue' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_to_playlist by specifying the queue rather than a playlist.

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 usage by naming the queue but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as add_to_playlist or search_and_add. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server