tidal_browse_hiresRetrieve TIDAL’s high-resolution audio page to browse hi-res albums and tracks directly from your MCP client.
Return TIDAL's high-resolution audio 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 safety and return-shape burden is largely carried by structured fields. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that - no note on pagination, freshness, or what the page contains - leaving it at the minimum-viable level.
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 zero wasted words; it is efficient. It is slightly abrupt in that the one sentence carries no supporting detail, but it is not padded or redundant.
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?
For a zero-param browse call whose annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure, the definition is functional but thin: it does not say what the hi-res page yields or why an agent would pick it over browse_home, browse_explore, or a search. Given the size of the sibling set, a distinguishing clause would materially help.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing the description could add here.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return TIDAL's high-resolution audio page'), so the agent knows it retrieves a curated hi-res listing. However, it offers no differentiation from the large family of sibling browse tools (tidal_browse_home, tidal_browse_explore, tidal_browse_genres), so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no stated conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as tidal_browse_home or tidal_browse_mixes. With over a hundred siblings, the absence of any routing cue is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.