MCP Claude Spotify

search-spotify

Find tracks, albums, artists, or playlists on Spotify by specifying a query. Use type and limit to filter results.

Instructions

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

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search-spotify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Type of item to search for (default: track)
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (1-10, default: 5)
`query`	Yes	Search query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0Sep 28, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Maximum number of results to return (1-50, default: 10)"New value: +"Maximum number of results to return (1-10, default: 5)"

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2025

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or result ordering. The only implicit signal is that a search is a read-only operation, which is minimal disclosure for a 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word maps to the tool's core purpose.

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?

The schema is fully described and there is no output schema to require return-value documentation, so the essentials are present. However, the absence of behavior and usage context leaves the definition only minimally viable for an agent choosing among many Spotify siblings.

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 meaning of query, type, and limit is already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no extra syntax or formatting guidance. This is the expected baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and enumerates the resources (tracks, albums, artists, playlists) plus the service (Spotify). An agent can distinguish it from playback and playlist-management siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no guidance on distinguishing it from related lookups like get-top-tracks or get-playlist-tracks. Usage is only implied by the verb 'search'.

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