tidal_preview_favorite_mixPreview saving one or more mixes to My Collection on TIDAL before committing the change.
Preview saving one or more mixes to My Collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mix_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| payload | Yes | ||
| preview | Yes | ||
| next_step | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| expires_at | Yes | ||
| destructive | Yes | ||
| approval_token | Yes | ||
| writes_enabled | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds the 'preview' concept but does not explain what a preview actually does — whether it stages a pending action, returns a token, or must be followed by a commit. This is the key behavioral gap the annotations cannot fill.
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 waste. Its brevity is efficient, though the same brevity leaves the workflow unexplained.
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 there is only one simple parameter. However, the description omits the preview-to-commit workflow that an agent needs in order to use a staging tool correctly.
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 must compensate. It contributes 'one or more mixes', clarifying the array is a batch, but says nothing about ID format or the 500-item cap already expressed in the schema. Minimal compensation 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-plus-resource (preview saving mixes to My Collection) and signals the batch scope with 'one or more mixes'. The favorite-vs-unfavorite split is carried by the name, but the description never distinguishes this staging tool from its commit counterpart, so sibling routing is only partial.
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 word 'Preview' implies a dry-run that precedes a real commit, but the description never says when to use this versus tidal_commit_action or the commit flow generally. Usage is only inferable from the vocabulary, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.