Estimate BPM from tap timestamps in milliseconds, or calculate quarter-note beat duration in milliseconds from a known BPM for timing and delay setup.
Estimate BPM from tap timestamps in milliseconds, or compute beat duration in ms for a known BPM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bpm | No | Optional known BPM to calculate quarter-note beat duration in ms. | |
| timestampsMs | No | Optional list of monotonic tap timestamps in milliseconds. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It conveys that this is a pure computation over supplied numbers, but is silent on minimum tap count, precision/rounding, and what is returned if neither or both inputs are supplied.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the primary output (BPM) and following with the reverse calculation. Every clause carries information.
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 two-optional-parameter pure computation with no output schema, the description covers both modes and their output units. It falls slightly short of complete because the zero-required-parameter design leaves the neither-input case unspecified.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the units and the quarter-note qualification on bpm, but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema (e.g., how many timestamps are required, whether ordering matters). Baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Estimate') and two precisely defined computations: BPM from tap timestamps, or beat duration in ms from a known BPM. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces and in which units, and the siblings listed (placement listings, aspect ratio, bitrate, subtitles) are unrelated enough that no differentiation is needed.
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 'or' construction implicitly documents the two modes and which input selects each: supply timestamps to get BPM, supply bpm to get beat duration. What is missing is an explicit exclusivity/empty-input rule, since both parameters are optional and neither is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.