Spotify MCP Server

by varunneal

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: GetInfo for metadata, Playback for player control, Playlist for playlist management, Queue for queue operations, and Search for finding content. However, there is some potential overlap between GetInfo and Search, as both can retrieve item details, though GetInfo is more specific to known items while Search is for discovery.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent 'Spotify' prefix and descriptive noun-based naming (e.g., SpotifyPlayback, SpotifyPlaylist). The internal actions within tools (like get, start, pause) are also consistent. A minor deviation is that some tools use underscores in action names (e.g., get_tracks), while others do not, but overall the pattern is clear and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for Spotify integration, covering key areas like playback control, playlist management, search, and queue handling. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without being overly broad or too narrow, making it manageable and functional for typical agent tasks.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core Spotify functionalities: playback control, playlist CRUD operations, search, and queue management. Minor gaps include lack of user profile management (e.g., get user info) or more advanced features like recommendations, but the essential workflows for playing music and managing content are well-supported.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 3 community issues answered or closed 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 status not available
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists six actions and their basic purposes, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: authentication requirements, rate limits, whether operations are destructive, what happens on errors, or what the return values look like. For a multi-action tool with potential write operations (add, remove, change, create), this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 efficiently structured with a brief overview followed by a bulleted list of actions. Each bullet is concise and to the point. However, the opening 'Manage Spotify playlists' is redundant with the tool name and could be eliminated, and the bullet format while clear isn't the most natural language for AI comprehension.
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?
For a complex multi-action tool with six parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, authentication requirements, or the relationships between actions. The tool handles both read and write operations, but the description provides minimal behavioral context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it simply lists action names without explaining parameter dependencies or constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Manage Spotify playlists' which is a vague purpose that doesn't specify what management entails. It then lists six sub-actions with brief explanations, but the overall purpose remains broad. While it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on playlists rather than search, playback, or queue operations, the verb 'manage' is too generic for clear understanding.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (SpotifyGetInfo, SpotifyPlayback, SpotifyQueue, SpotifySearch). The description lists six actions but doesn't explain when each should be used relative to each other or to other tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or contextual factors that would guide selection.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Search') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool interacting with an external API, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of items with metadata), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., maximum query length). Given the complexity of interacting with Spotify's API, more context is needed for effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (query, qtype, limit). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or qtype combination nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resources ('tracks, albums, artists, or playlists on Spotify'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this search tool from sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo or SpotifyPlaylist, which might also involve searching or retrieving content.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo (which might retrieve specific items) or SpotifyPlaylist (which might handle playlist-specific operations), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
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 states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, or output, which are needed for full contextual understanding.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'item_uri' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as URI format or usage tips, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('Spotify item'), specifying the types of items supported (track, album, artist, or playlist). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like SpotifySearch, which might also retrieve information, making it a 4 rather than a 5.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools like SpotifySearch or SpotifyPlaylist, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the two actions but doesn't describe what 'get' returns (e.g., list of tracks, current position), what 'add' does (e.g., adds to end of queue, requires active playback), error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies playback state.
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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool (with 'add' action) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns for either action, what happens on errors, or prerequisites like needing active playback. For a tool that can modify state, this leaves too many unknowns.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (action with two options, track_id as required for add). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as managing the playback queue with two specific actions: getting the queue or adding tracks. It uses specific verbs ('get', 'add') and identifies the resource ('playback queue'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like SpotifyPlayback which might handle other playback controls.
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 context through the action parameter description ('add' or 'get'), suggesting when to use each mode. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like SpotifyPlayback for queue management versus other playback functions, or when track_id is required versus optional.
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 describes basic actions but lacks details on behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no playback is active. For a mutation tool with actions like start, pause, and skip, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the overall purpose and then listing actions in a bulleted format. Every sentence earns its place by clearly defining the tool's scope without unnecessary details.
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?
Given the complexity of a playback management tool with mutation actions and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., active device), and how actions interact with the Spotify ecosystem, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing actions but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. With 3 parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description slightly enhances clarity by summarizing actions, warranting a 4.
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's purpose as managing current playback with four specific actions (get, start, pause, skip), using precise verbs and distinguishing it from sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo, SpotifyPlaylist, SpotifyQueue, and SpotifySearch by focusing on playback control rather than information retrieval, playlist management, queue operations, or search.
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 through action descriptions (e.g., 'start' plays new items or resumes playback), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like SpotifyQueue for queue management or SpotifySearch for finding tracks. No exclusions or clear contextual guidance are provided.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![spotify-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/varunneal/spotify-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/varunneal/spotify-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spotify-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/varunneal/spotify-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/varunneal/spotify-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/varunneal/spotify-mcp'

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