tidal_get_artist_radio_mixRetrieve the reusable mix that powers an artist's radio by artist ID, enabling radio-style playback and discovery.
Return the reusable mix that powers artist radio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion that the mix is 'reusable' and 'powers artist radio' — no auth requirements, rate limits, or behavioral traits beyond the structured fields.
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 efficient sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing differentiation noted above.
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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the description fails to disambiguate from tidal_get_artist_radio and provides no parameter guidance, leaving meaningful holes for such a crowded sibling set.
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?
The single required parameter artist_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no source (artist ID from search, or a TIDAL-specific ID?), no validation notes. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap.
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 ('the reusable mix that powers artist radio'), which is more than a tautology, but the phrase is vague about what the returned object actually is (a mix entity? a radio seed?). Critically, it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling tidal_get_artist_radio, leaving the agent unable to tell them apart.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With siblings like tidal_get_artist_radio, tidal_get_track_radio_mix, tidal_get_mix and tidal_get_mix_v2 in the same namespace, the omission is a real routing hazard rather than a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.