Skip to main content
Glama

spotify

by com.jojapi

Track recommendations

get_v1_1_recommendations

Track recommendations Group: Deprecated Endpoints (v1). Billing per call: 1 Credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoThe target size of the list of recommended tracks. Default: 20. Minimum: 1. Maximum: 100.
seed_genresNoA comma separated list of any genres in the set of available genre seeds.
seed_tracksNoA comma separated list of Spotify IDs for a seed track. Up to 5 seed values may be provided in any combination of seed_artists, seed_tracks and seed_genres.
seed_artistsNoA comma separated list of Spotify IDs for seed artists.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
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. It provides some useful context (deprecated, v1, billing per call), but does not describe authentication requirements, response behavior, limitations, or whether this is a read-only operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, but the opening 'Track recommendations' is redundant with the title. The remaining content only conveys deprecation and billing, so the description is under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns, what inputs are expected, and any caveats. The description only mentions deprecation and billing, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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 the parameters have clear descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no parameter information, but per the rubric, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is essentially a restatement of the title ('Track recommendations') plus deprecation and billing metadata. It does not state what the tool does with a specific verb and resource, nor does it clarify that it returns recommended tracks based on seed inputs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only marks the endpoint as deprecated and v1, but does not mention a recommended v2 replacement or any conditions under which this tool should be chosen.

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

All spotify toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping or unclear distinctions, such as multiple album/artist/track variations (v1 vs v2, metadata vs details, overview vs discography). The minimal descriptions do little to clarify when to use one over another, especially for similar artist endpoints.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share a 'get_' prefix and a version segment (v1_1 or v2), but the remainder mixes snake_case and camelCase (e.g., detailsAndTracks vs details_and_items) and varies in hierarchical depth (e.g., album_metadata vs album_tracks). The pattern is not fully uniform.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server is heavily over-populated for a typical MCP tool set. Many endpoints are hyper-granular (e.g., artist discovered_on vs featuring vs appears_on), which exceeds a comfortable coherence range.

Completeness2/5

The set is entirely read-only (all GET), lacking any mutation or playback controls. Within reads, it covers many album, artist, and track endpoints, but misses common features like user playlists, saved tracks, or search for playlists, leaving obvious gaps for a Spotify integration.

Resources