tidal_get_album_imageRetrieve a TIDAL album cover URL at a chosen square size by providing the album ID and optional dimensions.
Return an album-cover URL at the requested square size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| album_id | Yes | ||
| dimensions | No |
| 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 agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that the returned image is square and sized on request, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or how the URL is consumed.
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 that states the resource and the size behavior. Efficient and free of filler, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification.
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-value detail is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter state-read tool the description is nearly sufficient, with the only real omission being nothing critical.
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%, so the description must compensate. "Requested square size" maps to the dimensions parameter and clarifies it is a square, but it omits the allowed range (80-3000) and default (1280) that the schema encodes only structurally. Album_id is implied by the tool name and schema requirement.
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: it returns an album-cover URL, which cleanly separates it from metadata siblings like tidal_get_album. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent image tools such as tidal_get_artist_image or tidal_get_video_image, but the resource (album-cover) is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tidal_get_album (which may already carry cover data) or the other *_get_*_image tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.