Spotify MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_show

Retrieve detailed information about a Spotify show using its ID. Specify a market code to check availability in a specific country.

Instructions

Get details of a Spotify show (podcast).

    Args:
        show_id: The Spotify ID of the show.
        market: ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code; affects availability.

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": {
      "show_id": "<show_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_show"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`market`	No
`show_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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions market affects availability, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or what 'details' includes (though output schema may cover return values).

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?

Extremely concise: two clear sentences plus parameter descriptions. No redundant information, front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

Given 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential info. Lacks note on show_id format (e.g., alphanumeric), but otherwise complete for a detail endpoint.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining show_id as the Spotify ID and market as ISO country code affecting availability, adding meaning beyond raw schema types.

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 explicitly states it gets details of a Spotify show (podcast), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_show_episodes (episodes) and get_shows (multiple shows).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, though the name and description imply it for single show details. Siblings exist for other purposes but no comparison provided.

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