Read peak levels for every mixer channel in dB and, with duration_ms, sample playback to return each channel's highest peak and flag clipping above -0.1 dB.
Peak meters of every mixer channel in dB (-144 = silence). With duration_ms, samples repeatedly (e.g. while playing) and returns the highest peak per channel, plus which channels clipped (above -0.1 dB).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the -144 silence floor, the repeated-sampling behavior, the highest-peak-per-channel return, and the clipping threshold of -0.1 dB. It omits that this is a non-mutating read with no side effects, but the behavioral disclosure of return semantics is strong for a metering tool.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and value semantics before the optional-parameter behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape (highest peak per channel plus clipped channels) and the clipping threshold, which is exactly what the agent needs. For a single-optional-param read tool this is nearly complete, with only side-effect/auth context absent.
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 coverage is 0% for the single duration_ms parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that providing duration_ms triggers repeated sampling and aggregation to the highest peak. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare integer schema, though the unit (ms is named) and blocking behavior are not elaborated.
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+resource: reading peak meters of every mixer channel in dB, with the silence floor clarified. Clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling read tools like live_channels, which an agent might reasonably confuse for level data.
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?
Usage is implied through the duration_ms branch ('samples repeatedly (e.g. while playing)'), giving a decent sense of when to poll vs take a single reading. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like live_channels, and no stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.