Skip to main content
Glama

Spotify

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Track

get_track
Read-onlyIdempotent

Single track by Spotify ID. Returns artists, album, popularity, preview URL, duration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNoMarket for availability
track_idYesSpotify track ID (base62)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoTrack ID
nameNoTrack name
albumNo
artistsNo
explicitNoExplicit content flag
popularityNoPopularity 0-100
duration_msNoDuration in milliseconds
is_playableNoPlayable in market
preview_urlNo30s preview URL or null

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "track_id": "11dFghVXANMlKmJXsNCQvb"
+  },
+  {
+    "market": "GB",
+    "track_id": "11dFghVXANMlKmJXsNCQvb"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Spotify track with artists, album, popularity, preview URL, duration",
+  "properties": {
+    "album": {
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "description": "Album ID",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "images": {
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "height": {
+                "description": "Image height pixels",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "url": {
+                "description": "Image URL",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "width": {
+                "description": "Image width pixels",
+                "type": "number"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "description": "Album name",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "release_date": {
+          "description": "Release date (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "total_tracks": {
+          "description": "Total tracks on album",
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "artists": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "genres": {
+            "description": "Artist genres",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Artist ID",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Artist name",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "duration_ms": {
+      "description": "Duration in milliseconds",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "explicit": {
+      "description": "Explicit content flag",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Track ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "is_playable": {
+      "description": "Playable in market",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Track name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "popularity": {
+      "description": "Popularity 0-100",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "preview_url": {
+      "description": "30s preview URL or null",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds a summary of returned fields but no side-effect or authentication details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences front-load the core action ('Single track by Spotify ID') and immediately list the output. No filler or redundant wording; every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, with fully documented parameters and an output schema present. The description adequately supports selection and invocation. It could mention the optional market parameter's effect on availability, but the schema already covers that.

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%, with track_id and market both explicitly documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clear resource ('track'), stating it returns a single track by Spotify ID. It lists the key returned fields (artists, album, popularity, preview URL, duration), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_album or get_artist.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool when you have a Spotify track ID and need detailed track information. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_audio_features, but the context is unambiguous and there are no exclusions stated.

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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is a chaotic mix of Spotify music tools and an extensive Pipeworx data querying system, with no clear separation. Tools like 'ask_pipeworx', 'ask_pipeworx_grounded', and 'deep_research' have overlapping querying purposes, while unrelated tools from prediction markets and company research further muddy the boundaries. An agent would struggle to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: Spotify tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'get_album', 'search'), while Pipeworx tools use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research'). Additionally, some tools have vague names like 'process' or 'run' that could apply to anything. The lack of a unified naming scheme makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Spotify' implies a focused music service. The majority of tools are unrelated to Spotify (e.g., Pipeworx queries, Polymarket bets, dependency scanning), making the tool count feel inflated and inappropriate for the stated domain. A more focused set would be far more coherent.

Completeness1/5

If this is a Spotify server, it is severely incomplete: it lacks playlist management, user actions, and recommendation features beyond top tracks. The inclusion of dozens of unrelated tools (financial data, prediction markets, package analysis) suggests the server has no clear purpose, leaving it neither complete for Spotify nor for any other single domain.

Resources