Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
g2dgaming

Spotify MCP Server

by g2dgaming
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

spotify-mcp MCP 서버

Claude와 Spotify를 연결하는 MCP 프로젝트입니다. spotipy-dev의 API를 기반으로 구축되었습니다.

특징

  • 재생 시작, 일시 정지 및 건너뛰기

  • 트랙/앨범/아티스트/재생목록 검색

  • 트랙/앨범/아티스트/재생목록에 대한 정보 얻기

  • Spotify 대기열 관리

  • 재생목록 관리, 생성 및 업데이트

Related MCP server: Spotify MCP Server

데모

오디오를 켜두세요

구성

Spotify API 키 받기

developer.spotify.com 에서 계정을 만드세요. 대시 보드 로 이동하세요. 리디렉션 URI를 http://127.0.0.1:8080/callback 으로 설정하여 앱을 만드세요. 원하는 포트를 선택할 수 있지만 http와 명시적인 루프백 주소(IPv4 또는 IPv6)를 사용해야 합니다.

자세한 정보/문제 해결 방법은 여기를 참조하세요. MCP 환경(예: Claude Desktop)을 한두 번 다시 시작해야 제대로 작동할 수 있습니다.

이 프로젝트를 로컬로 실행하세요

이 프로젝트는 아직 임시 환경(예: uvx 사용)에 맞게 설정되지 않았습니다. 이 저장소를 복제하여 로컬에서 프로젝트를 실행하세요.

지엑스피1

이 도구를 mcp 서버로 추가합니다.

MacOS의 Claude Desktop: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Windows의 Claude Desktop: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

"spotify": {
    "command": "uv",
    "args": [
      "--directory",
      "/path/to/spotify_mcp",
      "run",
      "spotify-mcp"
    ],
    "env": {
      "SPOTIFY_CLIENT_ID": YOUR_CLIENT_ID,
      "SPOTIFY_CLIENT_SECRET": YOUR_CLIENT_SECRET,
      "SPOTIFY_REDIRECT_URI": "http://127.0.0.1:8080/callback"
    }
  }

문제 해결

이 MCP가 작동하지 않으면 문제를 제기해 주세요. 몇 가지 팁을 알려드리겠습니다.

  1. uv 최신 상태인지 확인하세요. >=0.54 버전을 권장합니다.

  2. 클로드에게 프로젝트에 대한 실행 권한이 있는지 확인하세요: chmod -R 755 .

  3. Spotify 프리미엄이 있는지 확인하세요(개발자 API를 실행하는 데 필요).

이 MCP는 MCP 사양에 명시된 대로 std err에 로그를 출력합니다. Mac에서는 Claude Desktop 앱이 이 로그를 ~/Library/Logs/Claude 에 출력해야 합니다. 다른 플랫폼에서는 여기에서 로그를 확인할 수 있습니다 .

다음 명령을 사용하여 npm 통해 MCP Inspector를 시작할 수 있습니다.

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /path/to/spotify_mcp run spotify-mcp

Inspector를 실행하면 브라우저에서 접근하여 디버깅을 시작할 수 있는 URL이 표시됩니다.

할 일

안타깝게도 Spotify API에서 여러 가지 멋진 기능이 지원 중단되었습니다 . 대부분의 새로운 기능은 비교적 사소하거나 프로젝트 운영에 도움이 될 것입니다.

  • 테스트.

  • 재생목록 관리를 위한 API 지원 추가.

  • 페이지별 검색 결과/재생 목록/앨범에 대한 API 지원 추가.

PR 감사합니다! 기여해주신 @jamiew, @davidpadbury, @manncodes, @hyuma7, @aanurraj 및 기타 분들께 감사드립니다.

전개

(할 일)

건축 및 출판

배포를 위해 패키지를 준비하려면:

  1. 종속성 동기화 및 잠금 파일 업데이트:

uv sync

  1. 패키지 배포 빌드:

uv build

이렇게 하면 dist/ 디렉토리에 소스와 휠 배포판이 생성됩니다.

  1. PyPI에 게시:

uv publish

참고: 환경 변수나 명령 플래그를 통해 PyPI 자격 증명을 설정해야 합니다.

  • 토큰: --token 또는 UV_PUBLISH_TOKEN

  • 또는 사용자 이름/비밀번호: --username / UV_PUBLISH_USERNAME 및 --password / UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD

Available Tools

5 tools
SpotifyGetInfoA

Get detailed information about a Spotify item (track, album, artist, or playlist).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_uriYesURI of the item to get information about. If 'playlist' or 'album', returns its tracks. If 'artist', returns albums and top tracks.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains return differences by type (tracks for albums/playlists, albums/top tracks for artists), but does not specify nondestructive nature, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially compensates by specifying behavior per item type, but it does not enumerate all returned fields (e.g., metadata like name, duration). This leaves some ambiguity for a simple 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 description coverage is 100% and already details the URI parameter's behavior. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the tool's purpose, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves detailed information for a Spotify item (track, album, artist, or playlist), differentiating it from siblings like SpotifySearch (which searches by query) and SpotifyPlayback/Queue (which control playback).

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 implied by the schema requiring a URI, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. An agent must infer context from sibling names.

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

SpotifyPlaybackB

Manages the current playback with the following actions: - get: Get information about user's current track. - start: Starts playing new item or resumes current playback if called with no uri. - pause: Pauses current playback. - skip: Skips current track.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'get', 'start', 'pause' or 'skip'.
num_skipsNoNumber of tracks to skip for `skip` action.
spotify_uriNoSpotify uri of item to play for 'start' action. If omitted, resumes current playback.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses basic behaviors like 'resumes current playback' for start and 'skips current track' for skip, but omits details on permissions, rate limits, error states (e.g., no active device), and whether get returns current track info or just status.

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 extremely concise: one introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of actions. Every piece of information is front-loaded and relevant. No wasted words.

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 (multi-action playback control) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites like an active Spotify device, account type requirements, or error handling. Important operational context is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it repeats the same action list. For example, 'num_skips' and 'spotify_uri' are already explained in the 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 manages current playback and lists four specific actions (get, start, pause, skip). This is a specific verb+resource with clear action breakdown, distinguishing it from sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo (which likely retrieves broader info) and SpotifyQueue (queue management).

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., active device) or when not to use it (e.g., if user lacks Premium). Usage context is entirely implicit.

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

SpotifyPlaylistC

Manage Spotify playlists. - get: Get a list of user's playlists. - get_tracks: Get tracks in a specific playlist. - add_tracks: Add tracks to a specific playlist. - remove_tracks: Remove tracks from a specific playlist. - change_details: Change details of a specific playlist.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'get', 'get_tracks', 'add_tracks', 'remove_tracks', 'change_details'.
descriptionNoNew description for the playlist.
nameNoNew name for the playlist.
playlist_idNoID of the playlist to manage.
track_idsNoList of track IDs to add/remove.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but fails to describe critical behavioral traits: authentication requirements (e.g., user authorization), rate limits, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a multi-action tool with mutations (add_tracks, remove_tracks, change_details), this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured with a brief header followed by a bulleted list of actions. Each bullet is clear and specific. However, the first line 'Manage Spotify playlists.' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the description could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information.

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 multi-action tool with mutations and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: authentication needs, error handling, return formats, and differentiation from sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall guidance for an AI agent remains inadequate.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing action types, but doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., format of playlist_id, source of track_ids, or constraints on name/description changes). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'Manage Spotify playlists' and enumerates five specific actions (get, get_tracks, add_tracks, remove_tracks, change_details), providing a comprehensive overview of functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this playlist management tool from sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo or SpotifySearch, which likely handle different Spotify resources.

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 the sibling tools (SpotifyGetInfo, SpotifyPlayback, SpotifyQueue, SpotifySearch). It lists actions but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from action names alone.

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

SpotifyQueueB

Manage the playback queue - get the queue or add tracks.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'add' or 'get'.
track_idNoTrack ID to add to queue (required for add action)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose behavior such as whether adding a track requires an active device, if the queue is appended or overwritten, or what errors occur. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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?

Single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No superfluous words, front-loads the resource and actions.

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 tool with two parameters and two actions, the description adequately covers purpose. It lacks details on return values or error cases but is sufficient for basic usage given no output schema and limited complexity.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal value by linking 'add tracks' to the action parameter and implying track_id for add. Baseline score is appropriate as schema handles semantics.

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 manages the playback queue with two specific actions: get or add tracks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like SpotifyPlayback by focusing on queue management.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like SpotifyPlayback for control operations. The description simply lists actions without context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

SpotifySearchB

Search for tracks, albums, artists, or playlists on Spotify.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of items to return
qtypeNoType of items to search for (track, album, artist, playlist, or comma-separated combination)track
queryYesquery term

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions search types and parameters but omits behavior like response structure, pagination, error handling, auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

Single clear sentence, front-loaded with action verb. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Lacks guidance on output format, pagination, or effective usage compared to sibling tools.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds minimal context beyond schema (e.g., hinting at qtype values already documented). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it searches for tracks, albums, artists, or playlists on Spotify. Distinct from sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo (specific item info), SpotifyPlayback (playback control), SpotifyQueue (queue management).

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?

Description implies usage for searching Spotify content, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no when-not or exclusions provided.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 5 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedSpotifyGetInfo
    • First observedSpotifyPlayback
    • First observedSpotifyPlaylist
    • First observedSpotifyQueue
    • First observedSpotifySearch
Deploy Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: SpotifyGetInfo retrieves metadata, SpotifyPlayback handles real-time playback control, SpotifyPlaylist manages playlist content and details, SpotifyQueue manages the playback queue, and SpotifySearch performs searches. There is no overlap in functionality that would cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent 'Spotify' prefix with a descriptive noun or verb-noun pattern (e.g., SpotifyGetInfo, SpotifyPlayback, SpotifyPlaylist, SpotifyQueue, SpotifySearch). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Spotify interactions, covering key areas like playback, playlists, search, queue, and general info. Each tool earns its place without feeling bloated or insufficient for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for core Spotify operations, including CRUD for playlists, playback control, search, and queue management. A minor gap is the lack of user profile or library management tools (e.g., managing saved tracks or albums), but agents can still handle most common workflows effectively.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers