tidal_get_mixRetrieve public metadata for one exact legacy TIDAL mix ID. Resolve a known mix identifier into catalog details for display or lookup.
Return public metadata for one exact legacy mix ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mix_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 safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only that the payload is 'public metadata' and that the ID is 'legacy', which is modest added context but no auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior.
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; the key scoping word 'legacy' arrives early. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 needn't be described, and the read-only annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the sibling disambiguation (legacy vs v2 mix) and any hint about the ID format, which leaves the agent under-informed for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.
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 carry the parameter. It tells the agent the value must be an exact legacy mix ID, but gives no format, prefix, or example, and the schema only constrains length to 1-160 characters.
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 (return) and resource (metadata for one mix) and adds the scoping word 'legacy' that hints at the distinction from tidal_get_mix_v2. However, it never names the sibling, so an agent still has to infer which of the near-identical mix tools to pick.
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?
The phrase 'one exact legacy mix ID' implies you must already hold an ID rather than browse, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and crucially no routing to tidal_get_mix_v2 or tidal_browse_mixes. Given how many mix siblings exist, this omission is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.