tidal_preview_favorite_track_by_isrcResolve a TIDAL track from its ISRC and preview adding it to favorites before approval.
Preview resolving and saving one track by ISRC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isrc | 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 carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds that the tool both resolves (lookup may fail) and saves, which is useful. However, it never explains what 'preview' means operationally — that this is a dry run whose result must be committed — which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs.
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 filler. The action, the resource, and the identifier type all appear immediately, and nothing is redundant.
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 not be explained. But for a mutation-adjacent preview tool in a preview/commit pipeline, the description omits the essential context that this action is staged and must be finalized via tidal_commit_action, leaving the workflow ambiguous.
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 names the identifier ('by ISRC') for the single parameter, but adds no format or validation detail (e.g., ISRC structure). With one self-evident required param, this is minimally adequate rather than rich.
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 states a specific verb ('resolving and saving'), a resource ('one track'), and a disambiguating qualifier ('by ISRC') that separates it from the id-based sibling tidal_preview_favorite_track. It is clear and distinguishable, though it does not explain what 'preview' entails.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'by ISRC' qualifier tells an agent to use this variant when it holds an ISRC rather than a track ID. No explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or named alternatives are given, and the preview/commit workflow is not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.