Skip to main content
Glama

Get Playlist Tracks

get_playlist_tracks

Retrieve the ordered tracks from a Spotify playlist to inspect the sequence before reordering or removing songs.

Instructions

The songs of one of the user's own (or collaborative) playlists, in order. Needed before reordering or removing songs.

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": {
      "playlist": "<playlist>"
    },
    "name": "get_playlist_tracks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax songs to return (1-500).
playlistYesSpotify playlist ID, URL or URI (use `id` from get_my_playlists).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; the "get" prefix implies a read and the phrase "in order" usefully discloses that ordering is preserved. It says nothing about pagination (despite a limit parameter), truncation, or what happens for private/foreign playlists, which are the behaviors an agent would most want confirmed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. The first sentence is a fragment, which is slightly jarring but not costly.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it omits any hint of the returned track shape and of whether the default limit of 100 silently truncates results. Those are the gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 both the playlist identifier formats and the limit range are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never mentions limiting, paging, or the accepted ID/URL forms. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ("the songs of ... playlists, in order") and narrows the scope to the user's own or collaborative playlists, which separates it from get_saved_tracks, get_my_top_tracks and get_artist_tracks. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Needed before reordering or removing songs" gives a concrete precondition that selects this tool over the sibling playlist mutators (update_spotify_playlist). The ownership qualifier also implicitly excludes other users' playlists, though no alternative is named for that case.

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