TIDAL MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions, such as get_album vs. get_album_tracks or add_track_to_favorites vs. remove_track_from_favorites. The descriptions explicitly differentiate operations, preventing confusion between similar tools like search_albums and get_album.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as create_playlist, get_artist_albums, and remove_tracks_from_playlist. The naming is uniform across the set, making it predictable and easy to understand the action and target resource.
Tool Count3/5
With 27 tools, the count is borderline high for a music streaming server, potentially overwhelming for agents. While it covers many features, it might be slightly over-scoped, as some tools like get_artist_radio and get_track_radio could be consolidated under a broader recommendation tool.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for TIDAL's domain, including CRUD operations for playlists and favorites, detailed retrieval for albums, artists, and tracks, search across all resource types, and discovery features like radio and similar content. No obvious gaps exist for core music streaming workflows.
Average 3.5/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 states the tool deletes a playlist and returns a confirmation, which implies a destructive, irreversible action. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion requires specific permissions, if it affects associated data (e.g., tracks), rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., invalid ID). For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though they could be more integrated. There's no redundant information, but the formatting as separate lines slightly reduces efficiency compared to a single cohesive paragraph.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive action, one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'playlist_id' is the 'ID of the playlist to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string), validation rules, or sourcing guidance. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched documentation.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a playlist from user's account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_playlist' or 'remove_tracks_from_playlist' by specifying complete deletion rather than modification or partial removal. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing playlist), exclusions (e.g., not for system playlists), or comparisons to siblings like 'remove_tracks_from_playlist' for partial deletions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of tracks but doesn't cover key aspects like whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, though the structure is simple and could be more polished.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it incomplete for optimal agent operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'playlist_id' as 'ID of the playlist' and 'limit' as 'Maximum tracks to return (default: 100)', which clarifies the parameters beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure) or usage nuances, leaving some gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get tracks from a specific playlist,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_playlists' or 'search_playlists,' which might also return playlist-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user_playlists' for listing playlists or 'search_tracks' for broader track searches, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is a removal but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the album isn't in favorites. The mention of 'Success status and confirmation' in Returns hints at output but lacks detail.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a mutation tool with siblings, more guidance on prerequisites and alternatives would improve completeness.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining 'album_id: ID of the album to remove from favorites', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric vs. string) or constraints, leaving gaps. With one parameter, baseline is 4, but limited detail reduces score.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('album from user's favorites'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_track_from_favorites' by specifying album rather than track, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other album-related tools like 'get_album' or 'search_albums'.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., album must already be in favorites), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_favorite_albums' for checking favorites first or 'remove_track_from_favorites' for different resource types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the action ('add to favorites') but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens if the track is already favorited, or any side effects. The mention of 'Success status and confirmation' in returns is minimal and doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It's concise with no wasted words, though the 'like a track' parenthetical is slightly redundant. Overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a write operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it doesn't fully prepare the agent for safe and effective use, especially for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'track_id: ID of the track to add to favorites.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only specifies type 'string'), this clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the ID format or source, leaving some ambiguity.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a track to user's favorites (like a track).' It specifies the verb ('add') and resource ('track to user's favorites'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_track_from_favorites' beyond the obvious opposite action, which is why it's not a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be logged in), when it's appropriate compared to 'add_tracks_to_playlist' or 'get_favorite_tracks', or any constraints like rate limits. This leaves the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Get detailed information' but does not specify if it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section could be more integrated into the flow, and some sentences are redundant (e.g., repeating 'album' in the Args).
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and basic parameter, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in this context.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It states 'album_id: ID of the album,' providing basic meaning but no details on format, constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, this is inadequate compensation, but it meets the baseline for having some param info.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get detailed information about an album,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (album). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_album_tracks or search_albums, which reduces clarity in distinguishing use cases.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to choose get_album over get_album_tracks (for track details) or search_albums (for finding albums), leaving the agent without context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only) and lists return fields, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid artist_id), rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter; it could be more concise by integrating parameter details into the main sentence. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage scenarios and behavioral traits, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'artist_id' by specifying it's the 'ID of the artist', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's type declaration. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could benefit from format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string ID).
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about an artist including biography'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_artists' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific artist rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_artist_albums' or 'get_artist_top_tracks', which are more specific sibling tools.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_artist' over 'search_artists' (for known IDs vs. search queries) or 'get_artist_albums' (for albums vs. general details). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage beyond the basic parameter requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving tracks but lacks details on permissions (e.g., requires user login), rate limits, pagination (only a 'limit' parameter with default), or what happens if no favorites exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: a brief purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence earns its place by adding value, such as specifying the default for 'limit'. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the default into the purpose statement.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: List of favorite tracks'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs), which are important for a user-specific tool in a set with authentication siblings like 'login'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'limit': it explains it as 'Maximum tracks to retrieve (default: 50)', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's type and default. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this effectively compensates, providing clear semantics that aid the agent in usage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get user's favorite (liked) tracks from TIDAL.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('favorite tracks'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_favorite_albums' or 'get_favorite_artists' by focusing on tracks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add_track_to_favorites' or 'remove_track_from_favorites' in terms of read vs. write operations, which slightly reduces specificity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other track-retrieval tools like 'get_playlist_tracks' or 'search_tracks', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., user authentication via 'login'). This leaves the agent without context for making informed choices among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a playlist, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid playlist_id), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the presence of an output schema, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral details like permissions or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'playlist_id' identifies the playlist to update, 'name' is the new name (optional), and 'description' is the new description (optional). This clarifies the purpose and optionality of each parameter, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a playlist's name and/or description.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('playlist'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_playlist' or 'delete_playlist' beyond the update action, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing playlist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_playlist' or 'delete_playlist'. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a list of tracks with album metadata, which adds some context about output. However, it does not cover important behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination for large albums. The description is minimal and lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The additional 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly verbose for such a simple tool; they could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly concise.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameter semantics, and return content. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in an otherwise adequate description for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'album_id' is the 'ID of the album', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. With schema description coverage at 0% (the schema has no descriptions for properties), this compensation is valuable. However, it does not provide details on the format or constraints of the album_id (e.g., whether it's a numeric or string ID, examples, or validation rules), leaving some gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all tracks from a specific album.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('tracks from a specific album'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_playlist_tracks' or 'get_album', which might retrieve different data, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_album' (which might return album metadata without tracks) or 'get_playlist_tracks' (for playlist-specific tracks), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, with no explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool accessing user-specific data, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about authentication, error cases, and sibling tool relationships, which are important for a tool accessing user-specific data. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'limit' is the 'Maximum albums to retrieve' and provides the default value (50). Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, making the parameter's purpose clear.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get user's favorite (saved) albums from TIDAL.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('favorite albums'), and source ('TIDAL'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_favorite_artists' or 'get_favorite_tracks' beyond the resource name, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user authentication), compare it to similar tools like 'get_favorite_artists', or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. This lack of context leaves usage decisions unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states it retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The mention of a default limit is helpful but insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the output. There is no redundant or verbose content.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or behavioral constraints, which are important for a tool with no annotations. The parameter explanation helps, but overall coverage is basic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'limit', explaining it as 'Maximum artists to retrieve' with a default value, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and default, providing practical usage information. With only one parameter, this is adequate.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('user's favorite (followed) artists from TIDAL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_favorite_albums' and 'get_favorite_tracks' by specifying the resource type (artists). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_artist' or 'search_artists', which slightly limits differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_artist' (for specific artist details) or 'search_artists' (for broader queries). It mentions the resource but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., user authentication) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of similar albums but doesn't explain how similarity is determined (e.g., based on genre, artist, or user data), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the structure of returned albums. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and a clear output.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., how similarity is computed) and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool with siblings like 'get_similar_artists'. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'album_id' is the 'ID of the seed album' and 'limit' is the 'Maximum albums to return' with default and max values. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail the format of 'album_id' (e.g., numeric or string). With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this is strong but not perfect.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get albums similar to the specified album.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('albums similar to the specified album'), making the function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_similar_artists' or 'search_albums' beyond the inherent difference in resource type, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_similar_artists' (for artist-based similarity) or 'search_albums' (for keyword-based discovery), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid album ID). The usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states it returns a list but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely requires user authentication and has operational constraints.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear main sentence followed by brief 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. However, with no annotations and missing details on authentication and behavioral traits, it falls short of being fully adequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'limit', specifying it as 'Maximum playlists to return' with a default of 50, which goes beyond the input schema's basic type and default. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could note constraints like minimum/maximum values.
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 clearly states the action ('Get list') and resource ('user's own playlists from TIDAL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_playlists' or 'get_playlist_tracks', which would require mentioning this specifically retrieves only the authenticated user's playlists rather than searching or fetching tracks from a playlist.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_playlists' or 'get_playlist_tracks'. It mentions the user's own playlists but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., authentication via 'login') or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of similar artists but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured efficiently, providing essential information without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'artist_id' is the 'ID of the seed artist' and 'limit' is the 'Maximum artists to return' with default and max values. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear context for both parameters, though it doesn't detail format specifics (e.g., what constitutes a valid artist_id).
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get artists similar to the specified artist.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('artists similar to the specified artist'), making the function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_artist' or 'search_artists', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to use 'get_similar_artists' compared to 'get_artist', 'search_artists', or 'get_artist_radio' from the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool adds tracks and returns success status, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires authentication, what happens with duplicate tracks, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the subsequent sections provide necessary parameter and return value information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 0% schema description coverage for parameters, and no annotations, the description does a reasonably complete job. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return concept. However, as a mutation tool without annotations, it should ideally mention authentication requirements or other behavioral constraints for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by clearly explaining both parameters: 'playlist_id: ID of the playlist' and 'track_ids: List of track IDs to add'. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. The description doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., ID format, array size limits), but provides good basic parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Add tracks') and target resource ('to an existing playlist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_playlist' (which creates new playlists) and 'remove_tracks_from_playlist' (which removes tracks). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what makes it different from 'update_playlist' or other playlist-related tools.
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?
The description implies usage when you want to add tracks to an existing playlist, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'update_playlist' or 'create_playlist'. It mentions 'existing playlist' which helps differentiate from creation, but doesn't address other sibling tools or potential constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses minimal sentences that each add value. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' formatting could be slightly more integrated into natural language.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, parameters, and return value, though it lacks behavioral context like authentication needs which would be important for this type of tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents both parameters ('name' and 'description') with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'description' is optional, which aligns with the schema's default value. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new playlist') and resource ('in user's TIDAL account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_playlist' or 'delete_playlist'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_playlist' or 'get_user_playlists'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication via 'login'), appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions that it returns a list of top tracks but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how popularity is determined (e.g., based on streams or charts). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-organized.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or error handling, which is a notable gap since no annotations are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: artist_id is explained as 'ID of the artist', and limit includes details on default (10) and max (50) values, which are not in the schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or source of artist_id (e.g., Spotify ID), leaving some ambiguity.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('artist's most popular tracks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_artist_albums or get_artist_radio. It precisely defines what the tool retrieves without being vague or tautological.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_artist_albums, get_artist_radio, or search_tracks. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the artist must exist or be accessible, and offers no explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions the return type ('List of albums') and default/max limits, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (e.g., if limit is exceeded), error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, and the subsequent lines detail parameters and returns. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the limit details into a single line, but it's efficient overall.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, though it lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, error cases), which holds it back from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explicitly documents both parameters: 'artist_id' as the ID of the artist and 'limit' with its default (20) and maximum (50) values, adding crucial meaning beyond the bare schema (which only specifies types and requirements).
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 clearly states the specific action ('Get albums by an artist') and resource ('discography'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_artist' (which likely returns artist info) or 'search_albums' (which searches across artists). The term 'discography' adds precision about the scope of albums returned.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention how it differs from 'get_album' (which might fetch a single album) or 'search_albums' (which might search by name rather than artist ID), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the service (TIDAL) and return format, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist, but it's insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
Perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place - no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. It provides adequate context for a search tool: service, parameters, and return format overview. However, with no annotations and behavioral gaps, it's not fully complete for a tool that might have authentication or rate limiting requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters thoroughly. It explains 'query' is for artist name searching and 'limit' has a range (1-50) with default value 10 - information not present in the bare schema. This adds significant value beyond the minimal schema.
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 clearly states 'Search for artists on TIDAL' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like search_albums and search_tracks by specifying the artist domain, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_artist which retrieves a specific artist rather than searching.
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?
The description implies usage through the 'Search for artists' phrase, suggesting it's for finding artists by name. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_artist (for known IDs) or search_albums/tracks (for other content types). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('List of matching tracks with id, title, artist, album, duration, and URL'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements (implied by TIDAL context but not stated), error handling, or pagination (only limit parameter is mentioned).
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?
The description is well-structured and concise, with three sentences that earn their place: purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value description. It uses bullet-like formatting for clarity without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, search functionality), no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. However, it could improve by mentioning authentication needs or error cases, slightly reducing completeness for a search tool in a music service context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'query' as 'Search query - artist name, song title, or combination' and 'limit' as 'Maximum results (1-50, default: 10)', adding clear semantics beyond the bare schema. This effectively documents all parameters without relying on the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for tracks on TIDAL' with the verb 'search' and resource 'tracks'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_albums and search_artists by specifying the resource type, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools beyond the name.
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?
The description implies usage through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'artist name, song title, or combination'), suggesting when to use it for track searches. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like search_albums or get_track_radio, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication (though login is a sibling tool).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it states the action is to 'remove' and 'unlike', it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, if it's reversible, what happens if the track isn't in favorites, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place, though it could be more concise by integrating the parameter explanation into the main text.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details like authentication needs or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'track_id' is 'ID of the track to remove from favorites', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. With schema description coverage at 0% (no schema descriptions), this compensates well, though it doesn't specify the ID format or constraints.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Remove a track from user's favorites') and the resource involved ('track'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remove_album_from_favorites' and 'add_track_to_favorites'. The parenthetical 'unlike a track' adds helpful clarification of the operation's effect.
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 implies usage context (removing from favorites, unlike a track) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_tracks_from_playlist' or 'add_track_to_favorites'. It clearly indicates the tool's purpose but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a destructive mutation operation (removing tracks), describes the return format (success status and count), and mentions the exclusive parameter requirement. However, it doesn't address permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid IDs/indices.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Note' about exclusive parameters could be integrated more smoothly. The two-sentence structure is appropriately front-loaded.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, parameter semantics, usage constraint, and return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values further. The main gap is lack of behavioral context like permissions or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 3 parameters: playlist_id (ID of the playlist), track_ids (list of track IDs to remove), and indices (list of position indices, 0-based). It also clarifies the critical constraint that only one of track_ids or indices should be provided. The only gap is not explaining what happens if both are omitted.
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 clearly states the specific action (remove tracks), target resource (playlist), and mechanism (by track ID or position index). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_playlist' (which removes entire playlists) and 'remove_track_from_favorites' (which operates on favorites rather than playlists).
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (to remove tracks from playlists) and includes an important usage constraint ('Provide either track_ids OR indices, not both'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., vs 'delete_playlist' for removing entire playlists) or name specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this returns 'TIDAL's native recommendations' and mentions default/max values for the limit parameter, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.
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?
The description is perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, adds context about TIDAL's native recommendations, then provides clear parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, provides parameter semantics, and mentions the return format. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about authentication or rate limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'artist_id: ID of the seed artist' and 'limit: Maximum tracks to return (default: 20, max: 100)'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the format of artist_id values.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get tracks similar to an artist's style') and identifies the resource ('artist radio'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_track_radio' by specifying artist-based recommendations rather than track-based ones.
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('useful for discovering music in a similar style'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for artist-based recommendations without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adequately describes the core function and return format, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The mention of 'TIDAL's native recommendations' adds some context about the recommendation source, but more operational details would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, parameter details, and return information. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing. The bullet-like formatting for Args and Returns enhances readability without wasting space.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns adequately. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling) to be fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains both parameters: 'track_id' as 'ID of the seed track' and 'limit' with its default (20) and maximum (100) values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't specify the format of track_id (e.g., whether it's a TIDAL-specific identifier).
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 clearly states the specific action ('Get tracks similar to a seed track'), identifies the resource ('track radio'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_artist_radio' or 'get_similar_artists' by focusing on track-based recommendations. The phrase 'TIDAL's native recommendations' adds specificity beyond a generic similarity function.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('music discovery and creating "similar music" playlists'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for track-based similarity rather than artist or album-based options, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 effectively describes the search functionality and result format, but lacks details about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior. It provides basic operational context but misses important behavioral traits.
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?
The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. The main gap is lack of behavioral context like authentication or error handling, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It successfully explains both parameters: 'query' semantics (album name, artist name, or combination) and 'limit' semantics (maximum results with range and default). The description adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Search for') and resource ('albums on TIDAL'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_artists, search_tracks, and search_playlists by specifying it searches for albums specifically. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching for albums) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_album (which retrieves a specific album) and get_favorite_albums (which retrieves user favorites). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool searches only public playlists (not user-specific), returns a list with specific fields, and mentions a default limit. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions that would be helpful for an agent.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' details), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. However, without annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'query' is for 'playlist name or theme' (clarifying search scope), and 'limit' has a range (1-50) and default (10) not in the schema. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the bare schema types.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Search for public playlists') and resource ('on TIDAL'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_albums', 'search_artists', and 'search_tracks' which search different resource types. It specifies the scope is limited to public playlists, not user-specific ones.
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 implies usage context by specifying 'public playlists' and listing return fields, suggesting it's for discovery rather than management. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_user_playlists' (for private/user-specific playlists) or other search tools for different media types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the OAuth browser flow mechanism, mentions automatic browser opening, and states session persistence. While annotations cover some aspects (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description provides practical implementation details that help the agent understand the user experience.
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?
Three concise sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and method, second describes the automatic browser behavior, third explains persistence. Each sentence earns its place by providing distinct, valuable information in a front-loaded manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is an authentication tool with 0 parameters, annotations present, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers the authentication method, user interaction (browser opening), and session management - all essential context for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the authentication process itself, which is the correct semantic emphasis for this tool.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Authenticate with TIDAL using OAuth browser flow') and resource (TIDAL service), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are data operations rather than authentication. It goes beyond the name/title by specifying the OAuth mechanism.
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Authenticate with TIDAL') and implies it's a prerequisite for other operations, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. The persistence statement suggests it's for initial setup rather than repeated use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tidal-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/keenanbb/tidal-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/keenanbb/tidal-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tidal-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/keenanbb/tidal-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/keenanbb/tidal-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/keenanbb/tidal-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server