tidal_browse_videosBrowse TIDAL's video page to find and view music videos.
Return TIDAL's video 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 detail such as authentication needs, pagination, personalization, or what 'page' means in practice; it merely 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity means it carries very little information beyond the tool name.
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?
Because the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values or arguments. However, in a suite of 100+ siblings with many browse_* and video-specific tools, it provides no help in deciding when this page is the correct one to call, leaving a major selection 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 the schema is empty and there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero parameters establish a baseline of 4.
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 verb ('Return') and a resource ('TIDAL's video page'), but the purpose is vague: it does not clarify what the video page contains or how it differs from siblings like tidal_get_video, tidal_get_artist_videos, or other tidal_browse_* pages. It is more than a bare tautology but still leaves the agent guessing at the actual scope.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites for choosing this browse page over the many other browse and video-related tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.