Spotify MCP Server

by llyfn

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_chapter

Retrieve details for a specific audiobook chapter using its Spotify ID and an optional market code.

Instructions

Get details of a specific audiobook chapter.

    Args:
        chapter_id: The Spotify ID of the chapter.
        market: ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code.

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": {
      "chapter_id": "<chapter_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_chapter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`market`	No
`chapter_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0Jun 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / market

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Market"
+}

First observedv0.1.1May 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 burden. It only states 'Get details' without disclosing rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' entail. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes an Args section that largely repeats the schema information. While not verbose, it could be more concise by omitting redundant parameter lists.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about the scope of 'details' and any side effects. It is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: chapter_id is described as 'The Spotify ID of the chapter' and market as 'ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable.

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 'Get details of a specific audiobook chapter,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_album or get_track by targeting chapters, and from get_chapters (plural) by focusing on a single chapter.

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?

The description implies usage when a chapter ID is available, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_chapters or search. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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