tidal_browse_exploreFetch the TIDAL Explore page to surface recommended albums, playlists, and discovery picks without leaving your MCP client.
Return the Explore page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| has_more | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| next_offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and an output schema exists, so the description carries a lower burden. Still, it adds nothing beyond those structured fields: no note about whether content is personalized, region-dependent, or requires authentication, which matters for an openWorld browse endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no bloat and the action front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though the sentence itself carries very little information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the mechanical gaps are covered. What is missing is the distinguishing context against the many sibling browse pages (Home, For You, Genres, Hires, Mixes, Moods), which is exactly the information an agent needs to choose correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource (return the Explore page), but it essentially restates the tool name and gives no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as tidal_browse_home, tidal_browse_for_you, tidal_browse_genres, or tidal_browse_mixes. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would pick Explore over Home.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other browse_* siblings, which is the central selection problem here given roughly ten browse tools in the list. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.