tidal_browse_moodsBrowse TIDAL's mood page to discover music grouped by mood or vibe. Use it to find listening options that match how you feel.
Return TIDAL's mood 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 safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all – no mention of what the mood page contains, pagination, or result shape – leaving it purely a restatement of the resource.
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 waste, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter browse call. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise.
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. But for a browse tool sitting among dozens of similar browse siblings, the description gives an agent nothing to route on beyond the resource name, which is a real gap in completeness.
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 are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description could add detail 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Return TIDAL's mood page"), so an agent knows this fetches the mood browsing page. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent browse siblings such as tidal_browse_genres, tidal_browse_home, or tidal_browse_explore.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many other browse tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.