tidal_get_album_reviewRetrieve TIDAL editorial review text for a given album ID, returning review content when available for display or analysis.
Return TIDAL editorial review text when available.
| 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 one genuinely useful behavioral signal, 'when available', warning the agent that the review may be absent, but says nothing about whether the result is empty, null, or an error in that case, nor about any auth requirement.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 structure needn't be described, and annotations cover the read-only, open-world nature. The only real gap is not telling the agent how this differs from tidal_get_album, which also takes an album_id, but for a simple single-param getter the definition is nearly complete.
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 technically should compensate, but the single parameter is named album_id and is self-explanatory given the tool name. The description adds no format, source, or ID-provenance detail beyond what the name implies, so it lands at a baseline 3.
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 editorial review text'), which is unambiguous and clearly separable from the many album-metadata siblings like tidal_get_album or tidal_get_album_tracks. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or clarify whether review text is also included in tidal_get_album, so a 5 is not warranted.
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 call this versus tidal_get_album or any other album tool, nor any prerequisites (e.g. does the album need to exist, is auth required). The only contextual hint is 'when available', which is a return-value caveat rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.