Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
varunneal

Spotify MCP Server

by varunneal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

spotify-mcp MCP サーバー

ClaudeとSpotifyを接続するMCPプロジェクト。spotipy -devのAPIをベースに構築されています。

特徴

  • 再生を開始、一時停止、スキップする

  • トラック/アルバム/アーティスト/プレイリストを検索

  • トラック/アルバム/アーティスト/プレイリストに関する情報を取得する

  • Spotifyキューを管理する

  • プレイリストの管理、作成、更新

Related MCP server: Vulpes Spotify MCP Server

デモ

音声をオンにしてください

構成

Spotify APIキーの取得

developer.spotify.comでアカウントを作成してください。ダッシュボードに移動します。redirect_uri をhttp://127.0.0.1:8080/callbackに設定してアプリを作成します。任意のポートを選択できますが、http と明示的なループバックアドレス（IPv4 または IPv6）を使用する必要があります。

詳細情報/トラブルシューティングについては、こちらをご覧ください。動作確認前にMCP環境（例：Claude Desktop）を1～2回再起動する必要がある場合があります。

このプロジェクトをローカルで実行する

このプロジェクトはまだ一時的な環境（ uvx使用など）向けに設定されていません。このリポジトリをクローンしてローカルで実行してください。

git clone https://github.com/varunneal/spotify-mcp.git

このツールを MCP サーバーとして追加します。

MacOS 上の Claude Desktop: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Windows 上の Claude Desktop: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

"spotify": {
    "command": "uv",
    "args": [
      "--directory",
      "/path/to/spotify_mcp",
      "run",
      "spotify-mcp"
    ],
    "env": {
      "SPOTIFY_CLIENT_ID": YOUR_CLIENT_ID,
      "SPOTIFY_CLIENT_SECRET": YOUR_CLIENT_SECRET,
      "SPOTIFY_REDIRECT_URI": "http://127.0.0.1:8080/callback"
    }
  }

トラブルシューティング

このMCPが動作しない場合は、問題を報告してください。以下にヒントをいくつか示します。

  1. uvが更新されていることを確認してください。バージョン>=0.54推奨します。

  2. claude にプロジェクトの実行権限があることを確認します: chmod -R 755 。

  3. Spotify Premium があることを確認します (開発者 API を実行するために必要)。

このMCPは、MCP仕様で規定されているstd errにログを出力します。Macでは、Claudeデスクトップアプリはこれらのログを~/Library/Logs/Claudeに出力します。その他のプラットフォームでは、ログはここにあります。

次のコマンドを使用して、 npm経由で MCP Inspector を起動できます。

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /path/to/spotify_mcp run spotify-mcp

起動すると、ブラウザでアクセスしてデバッグを開始できる URL がインスペクタに表示されます。

やるべきこと

残念ながら、Spotify API から多くの便利な機能が廃止されました。新しい機能のほとんどは、比較的マイナーなもの、またはプロジェクトの健全性に関するものです。

  • テスト。

  • プレイリストを管理するための API サポートを追加します。

  • ページ分割された検索結果/プレイリスト/アルバムの API サポートを追加します。

PR よろしくお願いします！ @jamiew、@davidpadbury、@manncodes、@hyuma7、@aanurraj などの貢献に感謝します。

展開

（やること）

建築と出版

配布用のパッケージを準備するには:

  1. 依存関係を同期し、ロックファイルを更新します。

uv sync

  1. パッケージディストリビューションをビルドします。

uv build

これにより、 dist/ディレクトリにソースとホイールのディストリビューションが作成されます。

  1. PyPI に公開:

uv publish

注: 環境変数またはコマンド フラグを使用して PyPI 資格情報を設定する必要があります。

  • トークン: --tokenまたはUV_PUBLISH_TOKEN

  • またはユーザー名/パスワード: --username / UV_PUBLISH_USERNAMEおよび--password / UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD

Available Tools

5 tools
SpotifyGetInfoA

Get detailed information about a Spotify item (track, album, artist, or playlist).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_uriYesURI of the item to get information about. If 'playlist' or 'album', returns its tracks. If 'artist', returns albums and top tracks.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains return differences by type (tracks for albums/playlists, albums/top tracks for artists), but does not specify nondestructive nature, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by specifying behavior per item type, but it does not enumerate all returned fields (e.g., metadata like name, duration). This leaves some ambiguity for a simple tool.

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% and already details the URI parameter's behavior. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the tool's purpose, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 detailed information for a Spotify item (track, album, artist, or playlist), differentiating it from siblings like SpotifySearch (which searches by query) and SpotifyPlayback/Queue (which control playback).

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?

Usage is implied by the schema requiring a URI, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. An agent must infer context from sibling names.

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

SpotifyPlaybackB

Manages the current playback with the following actions: - get: Get information about user's current track. - start: Starts playing new item or resumes current playback if called with no uri. - pause: Pauses current playback. - skip: Skips current track.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'get', 'start', 'pause' or 'skip'.
spotify_uriNoSpotify uri of item to play for 'start' action. If omitted, resumes current playback.
num_skipsNoNumber of tracks to skip for `skip` action.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses basic behaviors like 'resumes current playback' for start and 'skips current track' for skip, but omits details on permissions, rate limits, error states (e.g., no active device), and whether get returns current track info or just status.

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 introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of actions. Every piece of information is front-loaded and relevant. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (multi-action playback control) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites like an active Spotify device, account type requirements, or error handling. Important operational context is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it repeats the same action list. For example, 'num_skips' and 'spotify_uri' are already explained in the 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 manages current playback and lists four specific actions (get, start, pause, skip). This is a specific verb+resource with clear action breakdown, distinguishing it from sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo (which likely retrieves broader info) and SpotifyQueue (queue management).

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., active device) or when not to use it (e.g., if user lacks Premium). Usage context is entirely implicit.

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

SpotifyPlaylistC

Manage Spotify playlists. - get: Get a list of user's playlists. - get_tracks: Get tracks in a specific playlist. - add_tracks: Add tracks to a specific playlist. - remove_tracks: Remove tracks from a specific playlist. - change_details: Change details of a specific playlist. - create: Create a new playlist.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'get', 'get_tracks', 'add_tracks', 'remove_tracks', 'change_details', 'create'.
playlist_idNoID of the playlist to manage.
track_idsNoList of track IDs to add/remove.
nameNoName for the playlist (required for create and change_details).
descriptionNoDescription for the playlist.
publicNoWhether the playlist should be public (for create action).

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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.

SpotifyQueueB

Manage the playback queue - get the queue or add tracks.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'add' or 'get'.
track_idNoTrack ID to add to queue (required for add action)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose behavior such as whether adding a track requires an active device, if the queue is appended or overwritten, or what errors occur. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No superfluous words, front-loads the resource and actions.

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 tool with two parameters and two actions, the description adequately covers purpose. It lacks details on return values or error cases but is sufficient for basic usage given no output schema and limited complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal value by linking 'add tracks' to the action parameter and implying track_id for add. Baseline score is appropriate as schema handles semantics.

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 manages the playback queue with two specific actions: get or add tracks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like SpotifyPlayback by focusing on queue management.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like SpotifyPlayback for control operations. The description simply lists actions without context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

SpotifySearchB

Search for tracks, albums, artists, or playlists on Spotify.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesquery term
qtypeNoType of items to search for (track, album, artist, playlist, or comma-separated combination)track
limitNoMaximum number of items to return

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions search types and parameters but omits behavior like response structure, pagination, error handling, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with action verb. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Lacks guidance on output format, pagination, or effective usage compared to sibling tools.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds minimal context beyond schema (e.g., hinting at qtype values already documented). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it searches for tracks, albums, artists, or playlists on Spotify. Distinct from sibling tools like SpotifyGetInfo (specific item info), SpotifyPlayback (playback control), SpotifyQueue (queue management).

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?

Description implies usage for searching Spotify content, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no when-not or exclusions provided.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 5 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedSpotifyGetInfo
    • First observedSpotifyPlayback
    • First observedSpotifyPlaylist
    • First observedSpotifyQueue
    • First observedSpotifySearch
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

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.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches