Skip to main content
Glama
jamiew

Spotify MCP Server

by jamiew

Spotify Profile

get_me
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the signed-in user's Spotify profile details, including email, country, and product plan. If a field is unavailable on newer Spotify apps, it returns empty instead of an error.

Instructions

Get the signed-in user's Spotify profile.

Returns:
    UserProfile. email/country/product are unavailable on newer Spotify apps
    and come back empty rather than erroring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
emailNo
countryNo
productNo
followersNo
display_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: email/country/product may be unavailable on newer apps and return empty instead of erroring. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent handle potential empty fields gracefully.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a critical caveat about return values. Every word earns its place; it is both concise and structured effectively.

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?

For a parameterless GET that returns a user profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: the purpose and a key behavioral caveat about potentially empty fields. The output schema likely details the return structure, and the annotations cover safety, so no additional context is necessary.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools; the description correctly focuses on the output behavior rather than parameters.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get the signed-in user's Spotify profile.' It is specific and unambiguous, and it differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on the user profile rather than playback, tracks, or playlists. No ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the signed-in user's profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique purpose, the context is self-evident. A 4 is appropriate because the usage context is clear without needing to contrast with siblings.

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