mainstage-mcp

search_sounds

Find instrument patches in the installed Logic/MainStage sound library by keyword or category. Filter results by query and category to locate sounds for concert patches.

Instructions

Search the installed Logic/MainStage sound library (instrument patches).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_sounds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`query`	No	Keywords, e.g. "rhodes", "synth brass", "B3 organ"
`category`	No	Optional category filter, e.g. "Keyboard", "Synthesizer/Lead"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read-only local lookup. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior of the 'limit' parameter, what an empty query returns, or whether a library refresh is required first.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the key scoping qualifier ('installed') placed early. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: return shape, whether an empty query lists everything, and how query/category interact. The agent must guess at core calling behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%: 'query' and 'category' are documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (no matching semantics, no indication whether query matches patch names vs. categories, no guidance on combining query and category).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('installed Logic/MainStage sound library'), and the parenthetical '(instrument patches)' disambiguates what a 'sound' is. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like find_sound, list_patches, or list_sound_categories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite closely related siblings (find_sound, list_patches, list_sound_categories) whose selection criteria an agent must infer. The only implicit signal is that this searches the locally installed library.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server