Set Strudel's live coding tempo in beats per minute (20-999), converting BPM to cycles per minute assuming four beats per cycle. Use it to control playback speed.
Set Strudel's tempo in beats per minute, assuming four beats per cycle (setcpm(bpm/4)).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bpm | Yes | Beats per minute, from 20 to 999 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the underlying mapping (setcpm(bpm/4), four beats per cycle), which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema, but it says nothing about immediacy, whether it applies to already-running patterns, or how it interacts with block-level settings.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and unit, with the technical mapping parenthetically appended. Nothing is wasted and the essential information comes first.
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 single-parameter setter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits scope of effect (live patterns vs. future ones) and any relationship to the sibling tidal_set_tempo, which an agent selecting between them would want.
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% and the bpm range (20–999) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds the semantic conversion to cycles per minute, which is a modest value-add but largely complements rather than replaces schema content, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Set) and resource (Strudel's tempo) with the unit (beats per minute), and naming 'Strudel's' distinguishes it from the sibling tidal_set_tempo. It stops short of explicitly contrasting the two tempo tools, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus tidal_set_tempo or any other sibling, no prerequisites, and no note on whether it affects currently playing patterns. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.