Spotify MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Liked Songs

check_saved_tracks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if Spotify tracks are already saved in your library with a single request for up to 50 tracks, so you can avoid duplicating saves.

Instructions

Check which tracks are already liked, without paging the whole library.

One request for up to 50 tracks. Use this before save_tracks to skip what is
already there, rather than reading get_saved_tracks page by page.

Args:
    track_ids: Track IDs or URIs (up to 50)
Returns:
    MembershipStatus.results maps each Spotify track id to true if liked

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`track_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checked`	Yes
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.6.1Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral constraint: one request handles up to 50 tracks, and the return maps each track id to a boolean. This is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is in the first sentence, usage guidance follows, and the Args/Returns section is minimal and scannable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, usage context, and return shape. It could mention error cases or exact URI formats, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains track_ids accepts Track IDs or URIs and caps at 50, which adds meaning beyond the raw array-of-strings schema. It doesn't detail URI formats, but the core semantics are clear.

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 checks which tracks are already liked, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from get_saved_tracks by noting it avoids paging the whole library, and from save_tracks by being the pre-check step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use this before save_tracks to skip already-liked tracks, and contrasts it with reading get_saved_tracks page by page. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names alternatives.

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