export_midiExport the session as a base64-encoded Standard MIDI File, matching what Keyboardia's own Export MIDI produces for the same music. The session is not modified. The result lists any session features a MIDI file cannot carry rather than approximating them silently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The UUID after /s/ in a Keyboardia share URL. Pass only the UUID, not the full URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It states 'The session is not modified', which is redundant with readOnlyHint=true, but more importantly it reveals that 'The result lists any session features a MIDI file cannot carry rather than approximating them silently.' This explains handling of unsupported features, a behavior not covered by the annotations. The mention of matching Keyboardia's own export also sets fidelity expectations.
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 concise, with three sentences all contributing meaningful information. It front-loads the primary action and format, and the additional behavioral notes are relevant and clearly stated without unnecessary fluff.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, the return format (base64-encoded SMF), side effects (none), and behavior for unsupported features. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the information provided.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter (session_id), including a clear description ('Pass only the UUID, not the full URL'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool 'Exports the session as a base64-encoded Standard MIDI File', specifying both the action and the resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools (analyze, create, edit, get, publish, remix) by focusing on the export functionality and its specific output format.
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 implies usage for exporting MIDI files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this when...' or references to other tools for different scenarios. The purpose guides the user, but explicit guidance is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: analyze, create, edit, export, get, publish, and remix. Even similar actions like create versus publish are clearly separated by whether the result is editable or immutable.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, domain-appropriate verbs (analyze, create, edit, export, get, publish, remix). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for the session lifecycle: create, read, edit, export, publish, remix, and analyze. There are no redundant tools and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
The tool set covers the core session lifecycle well, including editing, publishing, remixing, and exporting. A minor gap is the lack of a delete or list operation, but these may be handled outside the server or are not essential for the intended workflow.