tidal_browse_for_youRetrieve your personalized For You page to discover TIDAL recommendations based on your listening history.
Return the personalized For You 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious read action—no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'personalized' entails (e.g., depends on user history). It essentially restates the title.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool, though it could have included a brief usage hint without becoming bloated.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with over 100 sibling tools including multiple browse endpoints, the description is too minimal to route an agent reliably—it lacks any indication of when the For You page is preferable to browse_home, browse_explore, or browse_mixes.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not introduce unnecessary parameter details, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.
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 clear verb 'Return' and a specific resource 'the personalized For You page', distinguishing it from generic browse tools by emphasizing personalization. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling browse tools (browse_home, browse_explore, browse_mixes, etc.) beyond the 'For You' label.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tidal_browse_home, tidal_browse_explore, or tidal_recommend_tracks. An agent must infer that 'For You' is the right choice for personalized content without any explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.