Skip to main content
Glama
thebigredgeek

spotify-mcp-server

by thebigredgeek
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.1.0

  • Disambiguation1/5

    All three tools — get_auth_status, health_check, and setup_instructions — serve nearly identical purposes related to authentication and server status. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool because they all provide information about setup or health with no distinct functional boundaries.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    All tools use snake_case with a 'spotify_' prefix, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: 'get_auth_status' follows a verb_noun pattern, while 'health_check' and 'setup_instructions' are noun_noun combinations, breaking the expected consistency.

    Tool Count1/5

    With only 3 tools, all dedicated to authentication and health, the server is vastly undersized for a Spotify service, which would typically require many tools for playback, search, queue management, etc. The count is far too low for the implied scope.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface covers only authentication and setup, missing core Spotify functionalities like play, pause, search, and playlist management. This is a severe gap that renders the server unable to perform any music-related tasks.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'check' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what defines 'operational'. Minimal behavioral context.

    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?

    Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with key information. Every word earns its place.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    No output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or possible states (e.g., success, error). Vague 'operational' leaves ambiguity.

    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?

    No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what the check entails (authentication and operational status), adding value beyond the empty schema.

    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 tool checks authentication and operational status, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('health'), distinguishing it from siblings like spotify_get_auth_status.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternative tools. The description does not mention when to prefer this over spotify_get_auth_status or spotify_setup_instructions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that instructions are returned (read-only) but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the instructions contain. The description is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

    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?

    A single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose without wasted words.

    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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple siblings, the description is adequate but lacks details such as prerequisites or the nature of the instructions. It could include hints about output format or steps covered.

    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?

    There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the schema, and its clarity suffices.

    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 tool provides 'detailed setup instructions for authenticating the Spotify MCP server', specifying verb (get), resource (setup instructions), and purpose (authentication). It distinguishes from siblings like spotify_get_auth_status (status queries) and spotify_health_check (health checks).

    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 setup or authentication instructions are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after setup, use spotify_get_auth_status to verify). No when-not or alternative tool mentions.

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

  • 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 it 'gets' information, implying a read operation, but lacks disclosure of any behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or dependency on credentials being set.

    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 a single sentence of 10 words, extremely concise with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

    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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose, though it could benefit from a brief note on the response format or highlighting differences from sibling tools.

    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?

    There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by indicating the output includes both authentication status and setup instructions, which is valuable context beyond the empty schema.

    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 tool retrieves authentication status and setup instructions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like spotify_health_check and spotify_setup_instructions by combining both functions.

    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 authentication status or setup instructions are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spotify_health_check or spotify_setup_instructions.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

spotify-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

spotify-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/thebigredgeek/spotify-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server