v2/Track metadata
get_v2_track_metadatav2/Track metadata Group: Tracks. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackId | No |
spotify
by com.jojapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects, data requirements, and return behavior. It only mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' and 'Group: Tracks', which adds minimal insight. It fails to explain what happens on invocation, whether it's read-only, or what data is returned.
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 extremely short (two fragments) and doesn't waste words, but the brevity comes from being under-specified rather than from effective conciseness. It doesn't earn its place beyond restating the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a metadata retrieval tool with a single parameter, the description should at least clarify what 'metadata' includes (e.g., track info, artists, album) and any prerequisites. None are provided, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage (+0%), and the description provides no parameter details. The only parameter 'trackId' is not explained beyond the title and example in the schema, and the description doesn't compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_v1_1_track or get_v2_track_details. No context is given about typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.