tidal_get_videoRetrieve public metadata for a single video by its exact TIDAL video ID.
Return public metadata for one exact video ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_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 read-only remote-fetch profile is covered. The description contributes one extra behavioral fact — only 'public' metadata is returned, and the ID must be an exact match rather than a fuzzy lookup. It says nothing about failure behavior for unknown IDs, which would have earned more.
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, hedging, or restatement of the title. Every word carries content and nothing needs to be trimmed.
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 structure need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the ID format/acquisition path and any error behavior for invalid IDs, which leaves a minor but real gap for a tool whose only input is an opaque identifier.
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 the single video_id parameter, so the schema supplies no semantics. The description partially compensates by specifying 'one exact video ID' (singular, exact-match, not a search term), but it never states the ID format or where such an ID comes from. Baseline 3 given one undocumented parameter with modest compensating prose.
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 ('Return public metadata') scoped to 'one exact video ID', which is enough to separate it from tidal_get_video_url and tidal_get_video_image by output type. It does not, however, name those siblings or explicitly contrast itself with them, so an agent must infer the routing.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned despite a crowded sibling set (tidal_browse_videos, tidal_get_video_url, tidal_get_video_image, tidal_list_favorite_videos). The agent must infer that this is the choice when it already holds a video ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.