tidal_list_playlistsList the authenticated user's TIDAL playlists without modifying them. Use limit and offset to paginate results.
List the authenticated user's playlists without changing them.
| 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 read-only nature is structured data. 'without changing them' merely restates readOnlyHint, though 'the authenticated user's' does add the useful fact that this is an auth-scoped personal query rather than a public listing.
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 verb and scope first. The trailing 'without changing them' is redundant against the readOnlyHint annotation and is the only wasted clause.
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 safety. What remains missing for a paginated list tool is any statement of usage routing or paging behavior, leaving the definition adequate but thin.
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?
The schema carries 0% description coverage on limit and offset, and the description says nothing about pagination, defaults (20/0), or the 50-item cap. The names are conventional enough to be usable, but 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List ... playlists') and scopes it to 'the authenticated user's', which quietly separates it from tidal_list_public_playlists and tidal_list_favorite_playlists. It never names a sibling, so the distinction must be inferred rather than read.
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 exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as tidal_list_favorite_playlists or tidal_list_playlists_and_favorites. The agent is left to guess which of the several playlist-listing siblings applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.