List Studio One songs stored on disk, newest first, with optional limit and title substring filter. Reads from ~/Documents/Studio One/Songs or $STUDIO_ONE_SONGS.
List Studio One songs on disk (newest first), from ~/Documents/Studio One/Songs or $STUDIO_ONE_SONGS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Case-insensitive substring of the song title |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest first) and the on-disk source locations, but says nothing about default/max limit behavior, error handling when the directory is missing, or recursion depth.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb, ordering, and source paths are all stated compactly.
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?
Adequate for a simple list tool with no output schema (return values needn't be explained). However, the undocumented limit parameter and absent error/permission behavior leave gaps for a tool with no annotations to lean on.
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 50%: the query param is documented in the schema, but limit has no description anywhere. The prose adds no parameter meaning (e.g., default limit, matching semantics), so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.
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 ('List Studio One songs on disk'), plus scope details (newest first) and the source directories. An agent can tell it apart from song_read (which reads a single song) by scope, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 only implied: it's a discovery/browse operation versus song_read for reading one song. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.