tidal_get_albumFetch public metadata for one exact album ID from a connected TIDAL account.
Return public metadata for one exact album ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| album_id | Yes |
| 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 that only public metadata is returned and that the lookup is exact (no fuzzy matching), which is useful but modest additional context; it does not discuss failures like invalid or unknown IDs.
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 wasted words. It is efficient, though on the terse side given the large sibling surface it must be distinguished from.
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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is present (public metadata, exact ID requirement) is adequate for a one-parameter read tool, though guidance on where to obtain an album ID is absent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single album_id parameter, so the description must compensate. "exact album ID" usefully signals that an opaque ID is expected rather than a title string, but it gives no format example, source, or length guidance.
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), resource (public metadata for an album), and scope (one exact album ID). It is clearly distinct from the many get_album_* siblings like tidal_get_album_tracks or tidal_get_album_review, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
"one exact album ID" implicitly tells the agent this is an ID-based lookup rather than a name/browse entry point, so an agent lacking an ID would infer it should use tidal_search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion against sibling album tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.