add_soundAdd sounds to a sprite or the stage using built-in options like pop, beep, or boing, or upload your own .wav file.
Adds a sound to a sprite or the stage. Built-in sounds: pop, beep, boing, zap, click, chime, whoosh. Files must be .wav.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | Path to a .wav file | |
| name | No | Sound name when loading from a file | |
| sound | No | Built-in sound name | |
| target | No | Sprite name, or "Stage". Defaults to the stage |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses accepted file formats (.wav) and built-in sound names, which is useful. However, it does not mention that adding a sound might overwrite an existing sound with the same name, or state any effects on the project (e.g., the sound is added but not automatically attached to a script).
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: two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary action and then lists built-in options. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essentials: what it does, target, and file format. However, it omits potential pitfalls (e.g., mandatory file or sound? What if both are provided? Does it replace existing sounds?) that an agent would need to avoid errors.
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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a small extra: the file format requirement, which is not explicit in the schema (though schema says 'Path to a .wav file', so it's redundant). The description doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., 'sound' vs 'file' are mutually exclusive?), which could be ambiguous.
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 verb ('Adds') and the resource ('a sound to a sprite or the stage'), and mentions the target defaults to the stage. It lists built-in sounds and file requirements, distinguishing it from siblings like add_speech and add_costume, though not explicitly naming them.
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?
It implies usage by indicating built-in sounds vs. file loading, and the target parameter's semantics are clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like add_speech or add_backdrop, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., project must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.