tidal_get_album_pageFetch the structured TIDAL album page using an album ID to access album details and metadata in a consistent format.
Return the structured TIDAL page associated with an album.
| 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what a 'page' contains, whether it requires an authenticated session, or how it differs behaviorally from the plain album fetch.
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 filler; nothing redundant or padded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight-but-complete.
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 documentation is not required, but the definition still leaves the core concept ('page') and the undocumented album_id unresolved. For a read tool with sibling overlap, it does not supply enough to call it correctly and confidently.
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% and the sole parameter album_id carries no description in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what form the album_id takes (TIDAL numeric ID vs. string) despite a 160-char maxLength hinting at a non-trivial identifier.
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 ("structured TIDAL page associated with an album"), so the basic action is identifiable. However, "page" is undefined jargon and the definition never distinguishes this from close siblings like tidal_get_album, tidal_get_album_items, or tidal_get_album_tracks, leaving an agent unsure what extra payload a 'page' provides.
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 and no alternative named. With three sibling tools operating on the same album_id concept, the agent gets no cue for choosing this tool over tidal_get_album or tidal_get_album_items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.