tidal_list_favorite_tracksRetrieve saved TIDAL tracks sorted by most recently added. Use limit and offset parameters to page through favorites and access pagination metadata.
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.
v1.1.1Output 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 read-only, network-touching profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail — results are sorted most-recently-added-first and the response carries pagination metadata. It does not say what happens past the page limits or whether the favorite set is user-scoped.
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 that states the resource, the sort order and the pagination trait with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the name or the structured fields.
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-value documentation is not required. For a two-integer, annotation-covered read tool, the definition supplies everything an agent needs to call it: the resource, the ordering guarantee and the presence of pagination metadata.
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, but it only gestures at pagination via 'pagination metadata' without explaining how limit and offset interact, that limit caps at 50, or that offset defaults to 0. The JSON schema's defaults and bounds make the two integers largely self-explanatory, so the gap is partial rather than severe.
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 saved/favorite tracks) and adds the ordering rule, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling favorite-listing tools for albums, artists, playlists, videos and mixes. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings or with tidal_get_playlist_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?
The description says what the tool returns but not when to reach for it over alternatives such as tidal_search or the other tidal_list_favorite_* tools. No prerequisites (e.g. authenticated user context) or exclusions are given; usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.