tidal_get_artist_radioBrowse an artist's TIDAL radio tracks by artist ID, using limit and offset to page through results.
Page through radio tracks for an artist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| artist_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 description is not the primary source of behavioral facts. The phrase 'page through' hints at pagination, but the description adds no operational detail about ordering, rate limits, or what an empty result means, so it earns little beyond the annotations.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being a model of dense, informative concision.
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?
The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no differentiation from the radio_mix sibling, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it confidently. More is needed about paging and variant choice.
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 for the three undocumented parameters. It mentions 'for an artist' (loosely mapping to artist_id) but says nothing about limit or offset semantics, leaving the paging parameters entirely unexplained.
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?
The description gives a clear verb ('Page through') and resource ('radio tracks for an artist'), which is enough to separate it from most siblings like bio, albums, or top_tracks. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the very close sibling tidal_get_artist_radio_mix, leaving the agent to guess which 'artist radio' variant applies.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tidal_get_artist_radio_mix or tidal_get_artist_top_tracks, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'Page through' vaguely implies list-style retrieval but no selection guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.