tidal_list_favorite_tracksList saved TIDAL tracks ordered by most recently added, with limit and offset pagination.
List saved tracks ordered from most recently added, with pagination metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| limit | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| has_more | Yes | ||
| next_offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does 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 genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations: results are sorted by recency and the response carries pagination metadata. It says nothing about authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool that is a modest gap.
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 the ordering rule and the pagination note; nothing is wasted or repeated.
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 no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only profile. However, in a suite with dozens of list/get siblings, the description offers no routing information and no explanation of the limit/offset behavior, leaving it only minimally complete.
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% and the description never mentions 'limit' or 'offset'. The phrase 'with pagination metadata' hints that pagination exists but gives no meaning for the two parameters, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List saved tracks') plus the ordering rule ('most recently added'), which is enough to place it among the tidal_list_favorite_* family. It never names a sibling or contrasts with one, so it stops short of a 5.
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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the per-album/playlist track listings or search tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.