tidal_get_playlist_tracksRetrieve one page of tracks from a TIDAL playlist by exact playlist ID. Use limit and offset to control pagination.
Read one playlist page by exact TIDAL playlist ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| playlist_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| limit | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| has_more | Yes | ||
| next_offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Output schema / $defs / Track / properties / isrcAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "International Standard Recording Code.",
+ "title": "Isrc"
+}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 the scope constraint that only a single page is fetched rather than the whole playlist, which is useful, but it says nothing about pagination limits, auth requirements, or what happens at the end of a playlist.
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 tight sentence with the essential constraint front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.
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 the read-only nature is covered by annotations. But with 0% parameter coverage and near-identical siblings (tidal_get_playlist_items), the description leaves the agent underspecified on pagination behavior and on why this tool is chosen over its lookalikes.
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 burden; it partially compensates by specifying that playlist_id must be an exact TIDAL ID (not a name or search term) and by implying page-based retrieval for limit/offset. It still omits the limit ceiling of 50, the default of 50, and offset semantics, leaving real gaps.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('one playlist page') and pins the identifier type ('exact TIDAL playlist ID'), so the agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from very similar siblings like tidal_get_playlist_items or tidal_get_playlist, leaving the agent to guess which one holds the tracks.
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 only an implied context ('one playlist page' suggests paging through results), but no statement of when to prefer this over tidal_get_playlist_items, tidal_get_playlist, or tidal_get_album_tracks, and no prerequisites such as needing a playlist ID from a list/search call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.