Drops all queued discs together at the next bar, enabling a synchronized multi-disc release in FUSER.
Drop every queued disc together, from the next bar.
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": "drop_queue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses quantization behavior ('from the next bar'), which is non-obvious timing context, but says nothing about permissions, what happens if the queue is empty, or whether the action is interruptible/undoable.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the timing qualifier trailing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
For a zero-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers what happens and when it takes effect, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Edge cases such as an empty queue or cancellation are the only meaningful omissions.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The single semantic modifier ('from the next bar') is timing behavior rather than a 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 ('drop') and resource ('queued disc'), plus the scope 'every ... together', which distinguishes it from the singular sibling drop_disc. The action itself is precise, though the domain term 'disc' carries meaning only if the agent already knows the tool family.
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 phrase 'every queued disc together' implies the bulk counterpart to drop_disc, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over drop_disc, eject, or play_mix. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.