PampaPilot MCP Server

by LeoLisena

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting specific properties, effects, or workflow stages. The batch mix tool overlaps slightly with individual set_track_* tools, and the multiple preview tools require attention, but descriptions and names adequately separate them.
Naming Consistency4/5
The majority of tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (set_track_pan, create_track, import_audio). The only minor deviation is health_check, which is a common idiom, but the overall pattern remains predictable.
Tool Count4/5
With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side but appropriate for the broad scope of REAPER integration, covering mixing, effects, MIDI processing, project state, and preparation workflows without being excessive or redundant.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage of the domain: track operations, effects, MIDI analysis/cleanup, audio import, project state/tempo/save, and undo. Some potentially expected operations like track deletion are missing, but the core workflow is well-supported.
Average 3.7/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 77 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Las anotaciones ya declaran idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false y readOnlyHint=false. La descripción agrega que 'verifica los valores mostrados', un detalle de comportamiento no cubierto por las anotaciones, aunque no profundiza en efectos secundarios o fallos. No hay contradicción con las anotaciones.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
La descripción es una sola oración sin relleno, directa y fácil de leer. Comunica la acción principal y el recurso identificado de forma eficiente.
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?
Para una herramienta con 11 parámetros y 8 obligatorios, la descripción es demasiado escueta. No explica qué significa 'verifica los valores mostrados', ni menciona prerequisitos del plugin, manejo de errores o contexto de GUIDs. Aunque existe un esquema de salida, la descripción no aprovecha ese alivio para cubrir otros vacíos operativos.
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?
La cobertura de descripción del esquema es 0% y la descripción no menciona ningún parámetro. Los nombres como threshold_db, ratio y attack_ms son autodescriptivos, pero la descripción no añade significado más allá del esquema, ni explica cómo se relacionan los GUIDs con los parámetros.
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?
La descripción usa el verbo específico 'Configura' y el recurso exacto 'ReaComp identificado por GUID', diferenciándose claramente de herramientas hermanas como configure_reaeq_band. Aunque 'verifica los valores mostrados' es algo vago, el propósito general es claro.
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?
No se indica cuándo usar esta herramienta frente a alternativas, ni se mencionan prerrequisitos como que el plugin ReaComp ya debe estar insertado en la pista. Tampoco se brindan exclusiones o condiciones de uso.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that originals are preserved ('Conserva originales') and that writes are confined to sessions/, giving the agent confidence about non-destructive behavior and output location. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that immediately conveys the core safety property and build location. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 4 top-level parameters and a nested options object with 9 settings. The description is far too sparse to provide a complete picture: it doesn't explain what 'clean' means, how to use parameters, or what the output variants contain. It leaves major gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no parameter information at all. It does not explain midi_path, audio_path, output_directory, or any of the many options (bpm, profile, quantize, etc.), leaving the agent to guess their meaning and relationships.
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?
The description states the tool 'escribe variantes auditables solamente en sessions/' (writes auditable variants only in sessions/), which clearly indicates its function of generating cleaned MIDI variants while preserving originals. This is more specific than a bare restatement, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like preview_midi_cleanup or analyze_midi.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The statement that it writes to sessions/ implies it is the actual writing step vs. preview, but this is only implicit and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'verifica pista/ítem/toma', which discloses a validation step beyond the schema. Annotations are all false, providing no safety cues, so the description carries some burden. It does not disclose side effects like track creation or permissions, but it does describe the return behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes no extraneous content. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (3 required) and a mutation operation, the description is adequate but minimal. It mentions the return of GUIDs and validation, but does not cover error cases, prerequisites, or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description remains incomplete for a non-trivial tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that the file must be a WAV (relevant to file_path) and mentions 'pista/ítem/toma' (related to track_name), but leaves project_ref and position_seconds unexplained. This is minimal compensation for completely undocumented schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action (import), resource (WAV), and scope (a new track). It also mentions verification and returning GUIDs, adding specificity. It implicitly distinguishes from import_audio_batch by saying 'en una pista nueva', but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_audio_batch. It does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the meaningful behavioral trait of being a 'single verifiable transaction,' implying atomicity and some form of result verification. This goes beyond the annotations, though it remains somewhat vague about rollback behavior or what 'verifiable' means in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and parameters. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the batch nature and transactional aspect, the description is minimal but sufficient for a simple tool with an output schema. However, it lacks usage context, error handling details, and a clear statement of the batch scope across multiple items, which leaves some gaps for an agent selecting the tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions volume, pan, and mute, which map to the TrackMixItem fields (volume_db, pan, muted), but it does not explain the items array structure, project_ref, ranges, or defaults. The schema field names are self-explanatory, so the description adds only marginal semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool applies volume, pan, and mute, using the specific verb 'aplica' and naming the exact mix parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools (set_track_pan, set_track_volume, set_track_mute) by emphasizing a single transaction, but it does not explicitly mention 'tracks' or 'batch' within the description text, relying partly on the tool name.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the individual set_track_* siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the constraint about allowed session roots but does not disclose overwrite behavior or requirements for project_ref, so it adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler; the description is appropriately short and front-loaded, with every word contributing to the core meaning.
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?
With 0% parameter coverage and no behavioral details like overwrite policies, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, despite having an output schema and annotations.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It hints that project_path must be within allowed session roots but does not clarify the meaning of project_ref or the relationship between the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Guarda como' (save as) with resource 'RPP nuevo' and a scope constraint 'dentro de las raíces de sesiones permitidas', making it clear this is a save-as operation distinct from sibling audio editing tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mentioned exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the name and description, but there are no comparable sibling tools to differentiate from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds 'y verifica la lectura posterior' (verifies subsequent reading), providing extra behavioral context beyond annotations. However, this verification behavior is vague and could confuse an agent about expected side effects or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action. It avoids unnecessary wording and earns its place despite being brief.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks crucial context such as when to use it, what 'verifica la lectura posterior' means, and any side effects like track state changes. The ambiguous verification phrase leaves the agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool.
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?
The input schema has 0% schema description coverage and the description provides no parameter-level details. The phrase 'el mute de una pista' loosely maps to the 'muted' and 'track_guid' parameters, but 'project_ref' is not explained, and boolean semantics are not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Cambia' (changes) with the resource 'pista' (track) and property 'mute', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_pan and set_track_volume. The title confirms the action of muting/unmuting a track.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_track_mix_batch or set_track_volume. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool verifies identity, GUID, and state, which goes beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false. However, it doesn't explain what this verification entails or any side effects, leaving ambiguity about failure conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence without unnecessary words, effectively communicating the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with three required parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It doesn't clarify the verification mechanics or any preconditions, though the output schema likely covers return values.
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?
The schema has no descriptions for project_ref, track_guid, or fx_type, and the description adds little beyond saying it adds ReaComp or ReaEQ. Track_guid is implied in the verification but not explicitly explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds ReaComp or ReaEQ to a track and verifies identity, GUID, and state. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like configure_reacomp and configure_reaeq_band, which configure rather than add.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites or context, such as needing to add the stock effect before configuring it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond the annotations by specifying that it configures an existing band (not creating one) and that it returns state. This complements the idempotent and non-destructive hints, though it does not detail side effects or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and its output, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple statement of purpose.
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 tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks context on how to target the ReaEQ instance, what the return state includes, and any prerequisites like adding the stock FX first. The output schema reduces need to describe return values, but the description still fails to convey essential usage context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only mentions band type and index, leaving the roles of frequency_hz, gain_db, q, enabled, and targeting parameters (project_ref, track_guid, fx_guid) unexplained. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a complex 9-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool configures an existing band by type and index, and returns its state. This is a specific action with a clear resource (band), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_reacomp by focusing on band-level EQ configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when configuring an existing band, and the word 'existing' provides an implicit exclusion (not for creating new bands). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites such as needing a ReaEQ instance, so guidance is limited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it verifies the name, returns a GUID, and mentions the transaction is reversible. It also implies a write operation (create), consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful side-effect information, though it does not detail all potential impacts (e.g., track index adjustment).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Crea una pista') and packs additional useful details (verification, output, reversibility) without waste. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a create tool: it states the action, mentions output (GUID and transaction), and implies reversibility. However, it lacks parameter semantics for project_ref and index, and does not address potential side effects or prerequisites. With an output schema present, return details are not fully needed, but the tool's behavior is only partially described, making it minimally viable.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions name verification, which gives some context to the 'name' parameter, but it does not explain 'project_ref' or 'index'. The description provides minimal additional value for parameter understanding beyond what the schema already displays.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a track in REAPER, verifies the name, and returns a GUID and reversible transaction. This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or inspect tracks rather than creating them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_audio or prepare_song. It does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it creates a track, but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the phrase 'sin crear ni cambiar archivos' is somewhat redundant. The description adds that it compares MIDI/WAV and returns a complete plan, but does not elaborate on what the plan contains or any prerequisites. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action and outcome. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or option details. However, it lacks any connection to sibling tools like clean_midi_files or explicit conditions for use, leaving a noticeable gap in contextual guidance for a preview tool with moderate complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It only mentions 'MIDI/WAV', which maps to midi_path and audio_path, but provides no guidance on the 'options' object, file path formats, or default behavior. The detailed schema offers partially compensating structure, but the description itself adds minimal parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Compara MIDI/WAV y devuelve el plan completo sin crear ni cambiar archivos.' It uses a specific verb ('compara'), names the resources (MIDI/WAV), and clarifies scope ('sin crear ni cambiar archivos'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clean_midi_files which likely apply changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a safe dry-run preview by stating no files are changed, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like clean_midi_files or analyze_midi. There is no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, so usage is contextually implied rather than explicitly explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: it specifies atomicity ('una sola transacción') and verification ('verificación'), which are not captured by the provided annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). While it doesn't detail the verification mechanism or failure behavior, it does provide meaningful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Importa un lote de WAV') and avoids any redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 batch import operation with atomicity and verification, the description is under-specified. It lacks details on what verification entails, error handling, prerequisites, or the role of project_ref. The presence of an output schema mitigates some return-value ambiguity, but the overall context remains incomplete for such a complex operation.
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?
The schema includes project_ref and items, but the description only hints that items are WAV audio files. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the meaning of project_ref or the item structure, leaving significant semantic gaps for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports a batch of WAV files as a single transaction with verification, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling import_audio by the 'lote' (batch) qualifier and the transactional behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch imports via the word 'lote' and 'single transaction', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_audio, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals non-modifying behavior, and the description adds 'sin modificarlo' to reinforce this. It also clarifies the tool only reads 'estado básico', adding a scope constraint. However, it does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the simple nature of the tool provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 0-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the operation, target resource, and non-modifying nature. There is no missing context required for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies per the rubric, and the description appropriately doesn't attempt to document nonexistent parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool reads tracks and basic state of the active project via the verb 'Lee' and resource 'pistas y estado básico del proyecto activo'. It also notes the tool does not modify anything. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_track_state, the project-level scope makes its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for reading the active project's tracks and state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_track_state. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, making usage guidance minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the target file and directory ('song-manifest.json bajo sessions/') and explicitly excluding plan execution. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it omits details like overwrite behavior or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with two clauses, efficiently conveying the core action and a key boundary. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple write action but lacks context about how parameters influence the manifest, prerequisites, or how it fits into the broader workflow with sibling tools like preview_song_preparation. The output schema exists, so return values are not a concern, but the operational context is thin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero explanation of the six parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the agent must rely entirely on the schema's bare type/default/enum information. The description does not compensate, leaving the meaning of fields like analysis_level or source_kind unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Escribe' (writes) with a concrete resource 'song-manifest.json' and location 'sessions/'. It also explicitly notes what the tool does not do ('no ejecuta el plan de REAPER'), which clearly distinguishes it from execution-oriented sibling tools like preview_song_preparation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context that this tool is for writing a song manifest and doesn't execute the REAPER plan, providing an explicit when-not. However, it does not name alternative tools or describe the workflow context (e.g., when to use before preview_song_preparation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it 'verifica la lectura posterior' (verifies the subsequent reading), which is transparency beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that includes the action, the allowed range, and the verification step. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description captures the core operation and includes a verification behavior, but lacks parameter semantics and usage context. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so the main gaps are in parameter explanation and when to use this tool instead of alternatives.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the volume_db range already in the schema. It does not explain project_ref or track_guid, leaving the agent without guidance on where to obtain these identifiers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Ajusta volumen -60..+12 dB' – clearly adjusting track volume with a specific range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_pan and set_track_mute, which handle different parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The context implies use for setting track volume, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by listing exactly what is read (notes, tempo, structural defects), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not describe return format or side effects beyond being read-only, but the added detail is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It has no redundant or unnecessary words, and every part adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description's concise coverage of what it does and its read-only nature is largely sufficient. However, the lack of any parameter guidance leaves a small but notable gap for a tool that relies on a file path.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention midi_path at all. The agent gets no additional meaning about the parameter beyond its name and type string, which is insufficient for a tool that requires a file path.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Lee' (reads) and identifies the resource (notas, tempo, y defectos estructurales). It also explicitly states 'no escribe archivos' to distinguish from write tools, which clarifies its scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like clean_midi_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this tool is for read-only analysis ('Lee... no escribe archivos'), providing a clear context for when to use it (analyzing MIDI structure). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use it, stopping short of full alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it works 'sin abrir REAPER', indicating a non-invasive discovery process. It also clarifies the scope of results (stems, MIDI, reference, suggested pairs) but doesn't disclose error handling or return value details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence in Spanish that front-loads the core action and scope. No redundant words; every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers the key function and the 'no REAPER' benefit. It could elaborate on what 'pares sugeridos' means or how results should be used, but it's adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the song_name parameter. The schema only provides type and length constraints, leaving meaning to be inferred from the parameter name. This is a gap for a tool with only one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Encuentra' (finds) and enumerates concrete resources: stems, MIDI, reference and suggested pairs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_midi or import_audio, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'sin abrir REAPER' implies it is a lightweight lookup that doesn't require launching the DAW, giving some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like analyze_midi, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds behavioral constraints: only the last transaction and only if history is intact. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail post-undo effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and condition, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The description is incomplete for correct invocation: it does not explain what project_ref or transaction_request_id mean, and the phrase 'last transaction' conflicts with the presence of a transaction_request_id parameter. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter semantics and state conditions are insufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (project_ref, transaction_request_id). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify the relationship between 'last transaction' and transaction_request_id, which is a key gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (undo), the specific resource (own last transaction), and a condition (history intact). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only undo-operation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: only for undoing the last own transaction, and only when the history remains intact. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the condition serves as a guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the returned elements (REAPER, active project, versions), which is useful. With readOnlyHint=true, the agent already knows it is safe. The description does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as response format or error behavior, but given the single-purpose nature and annotations, it provides adequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential information: what it checks and what it returns. No fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose and return values. It could have added a note about when to use it or error conditions, but these are not essential for a read-only health check with a clear output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's action and output rather than parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: checking the bridge/connection to REAPER and returning the active project and versions. The verb 'Comprueba' (checks) and resource 'el puente' (the bridge) are specific, and the return values are listed. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate tracks or projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—performing a connectivity check before other REAPER operations—but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusions or alternatives. No direct guidance on prerequisites or context beyond the inherent purpose of a health check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it verifies that positions, durations, and playrate do not change. This clarifies side effects and reassures about non-destructive behavior, complementing the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action, but it does not explain the project_ref parameter, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error conditions. The missing parameter documentation prevents full self-contained completeness.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the 'bpm' parameter implicitly but does not clarify what 'project_ref' is or how it should be formatted. This leaves a significant gap for one of two required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: adjusting project BPM and verifying that other properties remain unchanged. It is distinguished from sibling tools that operate on track-level settings (e.g., set_track_volume, set_track_pan).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about what the tool does (adjusts project tempo), making it obvious when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds further specificity by stating it does not even open REAPER and that it validates media, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existing annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core purpose and side-effect guarantees. It does not delve into parameters or return format, but the output schema is present, and the description provides enough context for a preview tool. Slight gap remains in that it doesn't explain what 'plan de sesión' entails or how parameters influence it.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for six parameters, and the description does not describe any parameter semantics. It only mentions validating media and returning a plan, without explaining song_name, bpm, numerator, denominator, source_kind, or analysis_level. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Valida') and resource ('medios'), and specifies the output ('plan de sesión'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'sin escribir ni abrir REAPER', which differentiates it from prepare_song and other side-effect-incurring tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'sin escribir ni abrir REAPER' strongly implies a preview/validation use case without side effects, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so no exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it verifies the adjustment ('lo verifica') and explicitly notes it does not overwrite active automation ('no sobrescribe automatización activa'). This is useful context not present in the annotations, which only state idempotency and non-destructiveness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. Every phrase adds meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify what happens when active automation is present (e.g., whether the operation fails or silently does nothing), leaving a minor but noteworthy gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions the pan range, which is already encoded in the schema's minimum/maximum. It does not explain project_ref or track_guid, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Ajusta' (adjusts) and the resource 'paneo de pista' (track pan), specifying the range -1..1. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_volume and set_track_mute by naming the exact property being adjusted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to set track pan) and provides a caveat about active automation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The automation note gives some context but lacks exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'Lee' (reads). It adds an important behavioral constraint: 'exige que el proyecto activo no haya cambiado' (requires the active project not to have changed), which is not captured by the annotations. This helps the agent anticipate a potential failure condition.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes a necessary precondition. No redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers the core purpose and the key caveat about project stability. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the role of track_guid (the GUID used to read the track) and project_ref (linked to verifying the active project hasn't changed). It provides meaning beyond the bare schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Lee una pista por GUID' (reads a track by GUID), providing a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing condition about requiring the active project to be unchanged, which helps set it apart from sibling tools that modify track state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context for use: reading a track by GUID with a precondition on the active project. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it doesn't fully meet the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pampa-pilot MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LeoLisena/pampa-pilot/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LeoLisena/pampa-pilot)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pampa-pilot MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LeoLisena/pampa-pilot/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LeoLisena/pampa-pilot)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LeoLisena/pampa-pilot'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server