tidal_browse_homeReturns the personalized TIDAL Home page for the signed-in account, showing recommended albums, playlists, mixes, and discovery rows to browse from.
Return the personalized Home 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. The word 'personalized' hints that results depend on the authenticated user's context, which is mildly useful, but the description says nothing about auth requirements or the nature/scope of the content returned.
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 wasted words, appropriately sized for a zero-parameter call. It is front-loaded with the operation, though it is arguably under-specified rather than tight.
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, for a personalized tool sitting among many similar browse siblings and requiring user context, the description leaves the critical routing question ('when Home vs for_you vs explore') unanswered.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and no enum or nested-object complexity exists.
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 resource (the personalized Home page) with a clear verb, but it largely restates the tool name 'tidal_browse_home' and adds only the word 'personalized'. It gives no signal to distinguish it from close siblings such as tidal_browse_for_you or tidal_browse_explore, which are also curated/personalized browse surfaces.
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 at all. With a dense cluster of sibling browse tools (explore, for you, genres, hires, mixes, moods), the description never says why an agent should pick Home over those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.