tidal_list_genresList all TIDAL catalog genres with limit and offset pagination. Use it to retrieve genre options for filtering, discovery, or recommendations.
List every catalog genre.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, default limits, or whether it returns a flat list or hierarchy.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, 'List every catalog genre' may be slightly misleading given the presence of pagination parameters, and it is arguably too terse for a tool with undocumented inputs.
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?
While an output schema exists to explain return values and annotations cover safety, the description is incomplete because it provides no information about the limit/offset parameters that the agent must use correctly. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, more context is needed.
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 does not mention the limit or offset parameters at all. The agent receives no explanation of how pagination works or what the defaults and constraints mean.
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 ('List') and resource ('catalog genre'), so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tools like tidal_browse_genres or tidal_browse_local_genres, which also deal with genres.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It is a bare command with no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.