@striderlabs/mcp-spotify

search_artists

Search Spotify for artists by name or query. Returns artist name, genres, popularity, followers, and URI for playlists and recommendations.

Instructions

Search for artists on Spotify. Returns artist name, genres, popularity, followers, and URI.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_artists"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of results to return (1-50, default: 20)
`query`	Yes	Artist name or search query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the search behavior and enumerates the return fields ('artist name, genres, popularity, followers, and URI'), which communicates that this is a read-only lookup. It could add more context such as authentication requirements or result paging, but the core behavior is clear.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise: two short sentences communicating the action and return fields with no redundant wording. It could be slightly richer, but every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the combination of description and schema covers purpose, parameters, and return high-level input fields. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by listing the fields; it could still mention that results are an array or require authentication, but it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters ('query' and 'limit'), including default and range. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the specific action ('Search') and the target resource ('artists on Spotify'), and lists the returned fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_albums, search_tracks, and search_playlists.

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 the tool is for finding artists, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other search tools or exclude album/playlist/track searches. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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