tidal_get_track_radioGenerate radio recommendations from a seed track ID, returning paginated similar tracks for music discovery.
List radio recommendations for one seed track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| track_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 nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no statement about how many results are returned relative to limit/offset, and no note on determinism or freshness of recommendations.
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 no filler and the key constraint ('one seed track') front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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 described, but with 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanation, an agent lacks enough information to size pagination calls or distinguish this tool from its radio_mix sibling. The definition is insufficient for a three-parameter recommendation tool.
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 schema documents none of the three parameters. The description only implies that track_id is the seed ('one seed track') and says nothing about limit or offset, leaving two pagination parameters entirely unexplained in both structured and natural language sources.
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 and resource ('List radio recommendations') and constrains it to a single seed track, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the near-identically named sibling tidal_get_track_radio_mix, leaving the closest alternative ambiguous.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as tidal_get_track_radio_mix or tidal_recommend_tracks. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.