tidal_get_tracks_by_isrcResolve an exact ISRC to its matching tracks, with limit and offset controls to page through catalog results.
Resolve an exact ISRC to matching tracks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isrc | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| 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 word 'exact' hints that partial or fuzzy ISRCs will not match, but nothing is said about pagination behavior, result-set size, or what happens when the ISRC resolves to zero or multiple tracks. Minimal added context beyond annotations.
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. It is appropriately sized for the surface-level purpose, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and usage detail noted elsewhere.
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, and the operation is conceptually simple. However, with 0% schema coverage on limit/offset and no differentiation from tidal_search, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.
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% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about the limit/offset pagination parameters (defaults 50/0, max 100/100000) or the ISRC string format, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from property names alone.
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 (resolve) and resource (ISRC to matching tracks), so the agent knows this is an exact-identifier lookup rather than a fuzzy text search. It implicitly distinguishes itself from tidal_search, but never names that sibling or any other alternative to sharpen the distinction.
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 when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The description does not state that this requires a known ISRC (versus searching by title/artist via tidal_search), nor does it mention any prerequisite or alternative path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.