Skip to main content
Glama
alienmind

mcp-strudel

by alienmind
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct and non-overlapping purpose: MIDI-to-Strudel conversion, Strudel-to-MIDI conversion, and Strudel validation. No ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: midi_to_strudel, strudel_to_midi, strudel_validate. Perfectly predictable naming.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is ideal for a focused conversion/validation server. No bloat or deficiency given the domain.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers the essential bidirectional conversion and validation. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for partial conversions or advanced transformations, but the core workflow is complete.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only validation operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond parsing and error reporting. No mention of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.

    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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

    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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format (error report) but is still adequate.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0% (no description for 'pattern' in schema). The description adds that the pattern is a 'Strudel mini-notation pattern', which clarifies the parameter's purpose but lacks format examples or constraints.

    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 'parse and report' and the resource 'Strudel mini-notation pattern', distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools which are conversions (midi_to_strudel, strudel_to_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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases (e.g., checking syntax before conversion).

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists supported syntax features and the output format, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or limitations, which is only adequate.

    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 concise (three sentences) with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: purpose, supported features, and output summary, with no redundant 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?

    Given the tool's complexity and absence of output schema or annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of output (note events with pitch, start/duration, and total length), but lacks explicit structure details, making it minimally complete.

    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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description only adds value for the pattern parameter by listing operators, failing to explain bars, cycles, velocity, octaveOffset, or conv beyond basic schema, thus not compensating for low coverage.

    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 action 'Convert a Strudel mini-notation pattern into MIDI note events' using a specific verb and resource, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like midi_to_strudel (reverse) and strudel_validate (validation).

    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 converting Strudel patterns to MIDI, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains key conversion details: quantization to a step grid, chords as [a,b], rests as ~, and elongation as @. This is informative but could be more explicit about edge cases like overlapping notes or input validation.

    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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core conversion action, and every sentence adds essential detail. No wasted words.

    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 complexity (conversion with quantization, chords, rests, elongation) and no output schema, the description covers the output format and transformation rules well. It is complete for typical use, though missing info on error handling or parameter effects.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 60% (notes, grid, conv have descriptions; bars and octaveOffset do not). The description does not mention any parameters, but it clarifies the input format (pitch, start, duration in beats) which adds value beyond the schema for the notes array. However, it does not compensate for missing parameter 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 tool converts MIDI note events into Strudel mini-notation text, including quantization and handling of simultaneous notes, gaps, and held notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like strudel_to_midi and strudel_validate.

    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 usage context is implied by the tool name and description (convert MIDI to Strudel), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or when not to use it. 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.

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

mcp-strudel MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-strudel MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/alienmind/mcp-strudel'

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