tidal_browse_genresRetrieve TIDAL's genre hub page to explore available music genres. Use it to navigate TIDAL's catalog by genre.
Return TIDAL's genre-hub 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, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no note on pagination, auth requirements, or what the hub page contains – and does not contradict the annotations.
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 filler, and the key info (genre-hub page) is front-loaded. It is efficient but nearly too terse to convey anything an agent couldn't read off the title.
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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description needn't explain results. But for a tool sitting among several similar genre/browse endpoints, the absence of any disambiguation or usage context leaves a real gap.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('TIDAL's genre-hub page'), so the agent knows it fetches a curated genre page. However, it gives no differentiation from near-twin siblings like tidal_browse_local_genres, tidal_list_genres, or tidal_get_genre_items, leaving the agent to guess which genre endpoint it wants.
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 statement of when to use this versus the many other browse/list tools (tidal_browse_explore, tidal_browse_moods, tidal_list_genres). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.