mcp-spotify

by obrien-matthew

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

add_to_queue

Add a track to the end of your Spotify queue by providing a track URI or ID. An active Spotify device is needed.

Instructions

Add a track to the end of the playback queue.

Requires an active Spotify device. Accepts a track URI or bare track ID.

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_uri": "<track_uri>"
    },
    "name": "add_to_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`track_uri`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says adds to queue and requires active device, but omits details like idempotency, error handling (e.g., if device inactive or track invalid), or whether the response includes queue status. The mutation aspect is implied but not explicitly flagged.

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?

Two short sentences, no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, an active device prerequisite) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could mention what happens if no device is active or if the track is already queued, but overall it's sufficient for the use case.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by stating it accepts 'a track URI or bare track ID.' This clarifies the format beyond the parameter name, but it could be more specific about accepted formats (e.g., 'spotify:track:...' vs. base62 ID).

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 'Add a track to the end of the playback queue,' specifying the action and the exact position. It distinguishes from play_track (immediate play) and add_tracks_to_playlist (playlist management) by mentioning 'queue'.

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?

It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires an active Spotify device') and implies usage for queuing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like play_track for immediate playback, leaving the agent to infer.

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