tidal_get_artist_similarFind similar artists based on a TIDAL artist ID. Use offset and limit to page through related artists.
Page through artists related to a seed 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 safety and external-lookup behavior are covered. The description adds the pagination behavior ('page through'), which is useful context, but says nothing about result ordering, similarity basis, or rate limits.
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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of missing detail rather than from tight editing of richer content.
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. However, for a read tool with three undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally adequate to invoke it correctly.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only vaguely implies an artist_id ('seed artist') and pagination ('page through'). It does not explain limit defaults/caps, offset semantics, or the artist_id format expected by the API.
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 ('page through') and resource ('artists related to a seed artist'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like tidal_get_artist_albums or tidal_get_artist_top_tracks. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby tools such as tidal_get_artist_radio or tidal_get_artist_radio_mix.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus the many other artist-related siblings (radio, mixes, top tracks, page). The word 'seed' implies an artist_id is required, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.