Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spotify MCP Server

Spotify MCP Server

by llyfn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_track

Retrieve detailed information about a Spotify track using its ID, with optional market parameter for availability.

Instructions

Get details of a Spotify track by its ID.

    Args:
        track_id: The Spotify ID of the track.
        market: ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code; affects availability/relinking.

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": {
      "track_id": "<track_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNo
track_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / market
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Market"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 plus an Args section, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 only 2 parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers tool purpose and parameter meanings. The output schema handles return values, so no further details needed.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: track_id is 'the Spotify ID of the track' and market includes its purpose and format. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description.

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 verb (Get), resource (details of a Spotify track), and method (by its ID). It distinguishes from siblings like get_tracks (plural) and get_album.

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 explicitly explains the market parameter's effect on availability/relinking, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tracks.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools