Skip to main content
Glama

Get My Playlists

get_my_playlists

List Spotify playlists in a user's library (owned and followed) with limit/offset paging. Identify editable playlists before reading or changing their songs.

Instructions

Playlists in the user's Spotify library (own and followed). Only editable ones can be read song-by-song or changed: Spotify hides the contents of other people's playlists from apps since 2026.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_my_playlists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many playlists (1-50).
offsetNoSkip this many (for paging).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add a meaningful non-obvious constraint: Spotify hides the contents of other people's playlists, so only editable ones can be drilled into or modified. It still omits confirmation that this call itself is a read-only listing and says nothing about pagination or return shape.

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 compact sentences with no waste, leading with the resource scope before the important access caveat. Every sentence 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 read-only list tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is close to complete, especially given the valuable caveat about non-editable playlists. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and what each playlist entry contains.

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 limit and offset are already fully documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description adds no additional semantics for either parameter, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 identifies the resource precisely: playlists in the user's Spotify library, covering both owned and followed playlists. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of the sharper sibling differentiation given to a 5, but an agent can still tell this is the library-level playlist listing.

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 implies when the tool is usable by warning that only editable playlists can be read song-by-song or changed. That is indirect guidance rather than an explicit when-to-use statement, and it never names an alternative such as get_playlist_tracks.

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