Spotify MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Liked Songs

check_saved_tracks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if Spotify tracks are already liked by providing up to 50 track IDs or URIs. Get membership status per track to avoid redundant saves.

Instructions

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

Up to 50 tracks per tool call, split into upstream chunks of at most 40.
Use this before save_tracks rather than paging through get_saved_tracks.

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate them. It adds behavioral context: no paging of the whole library, a 50-track cap with upstream chunking of 40, and a result mapping. This is exactly the type of operational behavior beyond annotation flags.

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?

Three sentences followed by a minimal Args/Returns block. The main purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance in second sentence, and the parameter note completes it. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one required parameter, a clear output schema (present), and annotations covering safety, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass, how many, and what to expect in the response (summarized even though output schema exists). No critical gap.

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 schema only says 'track_ids' is an array of strings with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates fully: it defines accepted value types ('Track IDs or URIs') and a bound ('up to 50'). This is essential for correct invocation.

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?

States a specific verb ('check'), resource ('tracks'), and scope ('already liked' without paging the whole library). Explicitly contrasts with get_saved_tracks in the same domain, and sibling tools like check_saved_albums are distinguishable by resource. This is unambiguous.

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 instructs when to use: 'before save_tracks' and not as an alternative to paging get_saved_tracks. Also notes the 50-track limit and chunking pattern, so an agent knows to split inputs. No other sibling is needed.

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