Evaluates a TidalCycles pattern on a selected audio channel (d1-d9) to produce algorithmic music. Use this to create and control sound patterns in real time.
Evaluate a TidalCycles pattern on a specific channel (d1-d9). This is the main way to make music with Tidal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | The channel to evaluate on (d1, d2, ... d9) | |
| pattern | Yes | The TidalCycles pattern to evaluate (without the 'd1 $' prefix) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it does not. It does not say whether evaluating a pattern replaces the previous pattern on that channel, whether evaluation immediately affects sound, how errors are surfaced, or whether the pattern persists until changed or silenced. 'Evaluate' implies sending a command, but the runtime effects and side effects are undocumented.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every clause earns its place; the 'main way' comment is useful orienting context, not filler.
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?
The tool is relatively simple, but it lacks any behavioral or result context, and there are no annotations or output schema to compensate. An agent is not told what to expect after evaluation, whether the action is additive or replacing, or how to stop or alter the result. The parameter schema is complete, but the overall operational picture is incomplete.
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 tool description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. The channel range and the note that pattern excludes the 'd1 $' prefix are both already present in the schema properties, so the description provides no extra value here.
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 names a specific verb ('Evaluate'), a clear resource ('a TidalCycles pattern'), and a precise scope ('on a specific channel (d1-d9)'). The statement 'This is the main way to make music with Tidal' distinguishes it from the surrounding utility siblings like tidal_hush and tidal_silence, so an agent can recognize it as the core sound-producing tool.
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 'main way to make music' phrase implies this is the primary tool for expressing patterns, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over siblings or when to use alternatives like tidal_silence or tidal_solo. The intended usage is clear enough, but exclusions and alternatives are left unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.