OSC MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific mixer components (e.g., channels, buses, effects) with clear action distinctions (get vs. set). However, some overlap exists, like multiple EQ-related tools (osc_set_eq, osc_set_eq_frequency, osc_set_eq_q) that could be confusing without careful reading of descriptions, and the compressor/gate tools follow similar patterns that might cause minor confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a highly consistent naming pattern: 'osc_' prefix, then a verb (e.g., get, set, mute, send), and a noun phrase describing the target (e.g., channel_name, aux_fader, emulator_status). This verb_noun structure is maintained throughout all 52 tools, making them predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count2/5
With 52 tools, the count is excessive for an MCP server, likely overwhelming for agents and leading to decision paralysis. While the domain (OSC mixer control) is complex, this many tools suggests over-fragmentation (e.g., separate tools for each EQ parameter) rather than a well-scoped set, making it borderline heavy and inefficient for typical use.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for controlling an X32 mixer via OSC, including full CRUD-like operations (get/set for levels, names, statuses), scene management, emulator control, and detailed effect/processor adjustments (EQ, compressor, gate). No obvious gaps are present; agents can perform all expected mixer interactions without dead ends.
Average 3/5 across 52 of 52 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Recall a saved scene' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify if this loads/applies the scene (potentially destructive) or just retrieves it (non-destructive). It also omits details like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., changing mixer settings), or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its behavior.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Recall a saved scene', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool that likely interacts with audio/mixer scenes) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recall' does operationally (e.g., loads settings, triggers an action), what the expected outcome is, or how it fits with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'scene' as a number from 1-100. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'scene' represents in context (e.g., a mixer preset). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Recall a saved scene' clearly states the action (recall) and resource (saved scene), but it's vague about what 'recall' entails (e.g., loading, applying, or retrieving scene data). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_scene_save' (which saves scenes) or 'osc_get_scene_name' (which retrieves scene names), leaving ambiguity about its specific function.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used for loading scenes in a mixer/audio context, or how it differs from other scene-related tools like 'osc_scene_save' or 'osc_get_scene_name'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sends a command but lacks behavioral details such as whether it's read-only or destructive, error handling, network latency, or mixer state changes. This leaves the agent with insufficient information about operational risks or effects.
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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, effectively communicating the core function. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's potential for destructive actions (sending commands to a mixer), the description is incomplete. It does not address critical context like safety, error responses, or when to prefer specialized sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 100%, with clear documentation for 'address' and 'value' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as example usage or mixer-specific constraints, but the schema adequately covers the basics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send') and target ('custom OSC command to the mixer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like osc_set_fader or osc_set_channel_name, which also send commands but for specific parameters, leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this generic tool versus the specialized ones.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for specific operations (e.g., osc_set_fader, osc_mute_channel), it fails to indicate that this tool is for arbitrary or unsupported OSC commands, missing critical context for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves fader levels, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like error handling, response format, latency, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'bus' parameter with type, range, and requirement. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as context or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('fader level for a mix bus'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_get_main_fader', which might retrieve similar fader levels for different targets, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other fader-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'osc_get_fader', 'osc_get_main_fader'). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the name' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the channel doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., a string name), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with such minimal structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 100%, with the parameter 'channel' fully documented in the input schema as a number from 1-32. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'name of a channel', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'osc_get_channel_source' or 'osc_set_channel_name', which also involve channels but for different operations, missing full sibling distinction.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'osc_get_channel_source' for retrieving source information or 'osc_set_channel_name' for setting names, the description lacks explicit context or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention any side effects, error conditions, permissions required, or what the return value looks like (e.g., numeric level, format). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., fader level format, units) or address behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured data support, the description should provide more context to be fully usable.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'channel' parameter fully documented (type, range, description). The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without providing extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current fader level for a channel'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'osc_get_aux_fader' or 'osc_get_bus_fader', which also retrieve fader levels for different mixer components.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for getting fader levels (e.g., 'osc_get_aux_fader', 'osc_get_bus_fader', 'osc_get_main_fader'), there's no indication that this tool is specifically for channel faders rather than aux, bus, or main faders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe any other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return value looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns numeric or structured data about gate thresholds. It doesn't explain what the return value represents (e.g., threshold level in dB), any units, or potential error states. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results.
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?
The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter ('channel') including type, range, and description. Since the schema does all the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('gate threshold for a channel'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_get_mute', but the specificity of 'gate threshold' provides enough distinction in context. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'osc_get_fader' and 'osc_get_mute' that also retrieve channel-specific settings, there's no indication of when gate thresholds are needed or what distinguishes this from other 'get' operations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or whether it requires specific permissions. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the mute status return value looks like (e.g., boolean, string) or any error conditions. For a simple read tool, this leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'channel' parameter with type, range, and requirement. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('mute status of a channel'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_get_pan', which also retrieve channel statuses, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'osc_mute_channel' (which likely sets mute) and other 'osc_get_*' tools for different channel attributes, there's no indication of context or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or what happens if the aux doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 perfectly concise at just 5 words ('Mute or unmute an aux output'). Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. Given the complexity of audio mixing systems and the presence of many sibling tools, more context would be helpful.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mute or unmute') and target resource ('an aux output'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like osc_mute_bus or osc_mute_channel, but the 'aux' specification provides some implicit differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like osc_mute_bus, osc_mute_channel, or osc_mute_main. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with sibling mute tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Mute or unmute' implies a state-changing operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is immediate or requires confirmation, potential side effects on audio routing, or what happens if the bus is already in the requested state. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 perfectly concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential action and target without any wasted words. Every element ('Mute or unmute a mix bus') earns its place by communicating the core functionality efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what the tool returns (success/failure indicators), error conditions, or how it interacts with the audio system. The presence of multiple similar muting tools in the sibling list further highlights the need for more contextual differentiation.
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?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Bus number (1-16)' and 'True to mute, false to unmute'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have added context about bus numbering conventions or muting behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mute or unmute') and the target resource ('a mix bus'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like osc_mute_aux, osc_mute_channel, osc_mute_main, and osc_mute_matrix, which all perform similar muting operations on different audio components.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple muting tools available (osc_mute_aux, osc_mute_channel, osc_mute_main, osc_mute_matrix), the description offers no context about what distinguishes a 'mix bus' from these other components or when this specific tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'mute or unmute' implies a state-changing operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, what happens to audio signals, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'muting' entails in this audio mixing context, what the expected behavior is, or what (if anything) is returned. The description should provide more operational context given the complexity implied by the sibling tools list.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain channel numbering conventions, what 'mute' means in this context, or any parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('mute or unmute') and resource ('a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_mute_aux' or 'osc_mute_bus', but the resource specificity ('channel') provides some implicit distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osc_mute_aux', 'osc_mute_bus', or 'osc_mute_main'. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('mute or unmute') but does not describe effects like audio behavior changes, permissions required, or system impacts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool performs a mutation (muting/unmuting) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral effects, error conditions, or what happens upon execution. For a tool with potential audio system impacts, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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 100%, with the parameter 'mute' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as context or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('mute or unmute') and the target resource ('the main LR mix'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_mute_aux', 'osc_mute_bus', etc., which target different resources, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other mute tools for different channels or resources. It implies usage for muting/unmuting the main mix but offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Mute or unmute' implies a state-changing operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to audio signals when muted, whether changes are immediate or require confirmation, or what feedback (if any) the tool provides. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'muting a matrix output' means in practical terms, what effects the operation has, what permissions might be required, or what happens after invocation. Given the context of audio mixing (inferred from sibling tools), more operational context would be helpful for the agent.
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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (matrix number range 1-6, boolean mute flag). With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mute or unmute') and the target resource ('a matrix output'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'osc_mute_aux', 'osc_mute_bus', 'osc_mute_channel', and 'osc_mute_main', which all perform similar muting operations on different audio components.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for muting different audio components (aux, bus, channel, main, matrix), the agent receives no help in selecting the correct tool for a given scenario. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set the send level') but does not mention whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a destructive operation, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or redundancy. It is efficiently structured and appropriately sized for its function, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling) and does not explain return values or usage context, making it insufficient for full agent understanding without additional inference.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (channel, bus, level) with their types, ranges, and purposes. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the send level') and the resources involved ('from a channel to a mix bus'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_send_to_aux', which might have similar functionality but for different bus types, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'osc_send_to_aux' or other bus-related tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for application, relying solely on the tool name for inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple setter function and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. Given the tool's complexity (changing system state) and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the operation's implications and expected outcomes.
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 100%, with both parameters ('aux' and 'level') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides about these parameters. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('fader level for an aux output'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_bus_fader' or 'osc_set_fader', but the 'aux' specification provides implicit differentiation. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'osc_set_bus_fader', 'osc_set_fader', and 'osc_set_main_fader' available, there's no indication of when an aux fader should be adjusted versus other fader types. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a 'Set' operation, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, effects), usage context relative to siblings, and any information about return values or errors. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('aux' and 'pan') including ranges. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'pan' means in this context or how aux numbers map to outputs. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('pan position for an aux output'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_bus_pan' or 'osc_set_main_pan', which would require mentioning the specific aux context, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'osc_set_bus_pan' and 'osc_set_main_pan' available, the description lacks any context about aux-specific usage, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Set' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or how it interacts with other mixer controls. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the fader, what the expected response might be, error conditions, or how this operation fits within the broader mixer control context. Given the complexity of audio mixing and many sibling tools, more context would be helpful.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (bus number 1-16 and fader level 0.0-1.0). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('fader level for a mix bus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like osc_set_aux_fader by specifying 'bus' rather than 'aux', but doesn't explicitly contrast with osc_set_fader which might handle channels instead of buses.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like osc_set_aux_fader, osc_set_fader, and osc_set_main_fader, the description doesn't indicate whether this is for mix buses specifically or how it differs from other fader-setting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation), but doesn't describe side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the name exceeds 6 characters. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether the name change is immediate or requires a save operation.
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 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (bus number range and name length limit), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('name of a mix bus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'osc_set_channel_name', but the specificity of 'mix bus' provides some distinction.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for naming mix buses, it doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a 'Set' action, implying a mutation, but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting audio output), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines compared to siblings, and any details about return values or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('bus' and 'pan') with ranges and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'pan' values mean (e.g., -1=left, 0=center, 1=right) or bus numbering conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('pan position for a mix bus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'osc_set_pan' by specifying 'bus' context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'osc_set_aux_pan' or 'osc_set_main_pan'.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osc_set_pan', 'osc_set_aux_pan', or 'osc_set_main_pan'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the bus must exist or be unmuted, or any timing considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Set the name of a channel,' implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether this affects audio routing), error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste—'Set the name of a channel'—front-loading the core action and resource efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on success/failure), usage prerequisites, and output details. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Channel number (1-32)', 'Channel name (max 6 characters)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints beyond the schema's min/max and max length. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('name of a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'osc_get_channel_name' (read vs. write) and 'osc_set_bus_name' (channel vs. bus). However, it doesn't specify the exact system or context (e.g., audio mixer), which slightly reduces specificity.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for naming channels, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., channel must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot set names for invalid channels), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'osc_set_bus_name' for different resource types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a mutation action ('Set'), implying changes to the system, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens if invalid values are used. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, which are crucial given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured data to compensate.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'channel' and 'source' including numeric ranges. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'source' represents or how changes affect the system. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('input source for a channel'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_channel_name' or 'osc_get_channel_source', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes setting a source from other channel operations.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'osc_get_channel_source' for reading and various other 'osc_set_' tools for different parameters, the description lacks context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool sets parameters, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if changes are immediate or require a save), error conditions, or permission requirements. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action ('Set') and specifies the parameters clearly, making it efficient and easy to parse without any wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with three parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after setting the values (e.g., confirmation, error handling) or provide context about the compressor's state, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.
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?
The description mentions 'threshold and ratio for a channel', which aligns with the three parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already provides detailed descriptions and constraints (e.g., ranges for channel, threshold, ratio). The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema documents, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target ('compressor threshold and ratio for a channel'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_compressor_attack' or 'osc_set_compressor_on', which are related but handle different compressor parameters, so it lacks full sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to choose this over 'osc_set_compressor_attack' or 'osc_set_compressor_on', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the compressor to be enabled first. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for this tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error messages), behavioral constraints, or integration with other tools. For a 2-parameter write operation in a complex audio mixing context, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (channel number range and attack time range). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as units for attack time or typical usage values. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('compressor attack time for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other compressor-related siblings like 'osc_set_compressor' and 'osc_set_compressor_release' by specifying the attack parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a compressor enabled), exclusions, or compare it to other compressor-setting tools like 'osc_set_compressor' or 'osc_set_compressor_on'. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Enable or disable') but doesn't describe what happens when enabled/disabling (e.g., whether it affects audio immediately, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on other settings). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and impact.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (success/failure indicators), error conditions, or behavioral details like whether changes are immediate or reversible. For a tool that modifies system state, more context about outcomes and constraints is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (channel number range and boolean meaning). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'compressor' refers to in this context or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and target resource ('compressor for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like osc_set_compressor, osc_set_compressor_attack, and osc_set_compressor_release by focusing specifically on the on/off state rather than other compressor parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly mention this differentiation, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the compressor must be configured first), when not to use it (e.g., if the channel doesn't exist), or how it relates to sibling tools like osc_set_compressor (which might handle broader compressor settings). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read/write operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides feedback. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on success/failure), doesn't explain the relationship to other compressor tools, and provides no usage guidance, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters with ranges. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying 'compressor release time' as the setting, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('compressor release time for a channel'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_compressor' or 'osc_set_compressor_attack', which reduces clarity in a crowded namespace.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osc_set_compressor' (which might set multiple compressor parameters) or 'osc_set_compressor_attack'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, nor does it explain the broader context (e.g., what system or protocol this operates on). Given the complexity of audio mixing tools, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (effect number range 1-8, mix level range 0.0-1.0). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining what 'mix level' means in context or how effects are numbered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target ('mix level for an effect'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'osc_set_effect_on' or 'osc_set_effect_param' by focusing specifically on mix level adjustment. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource context (e.g., audio mixer/OSC protocol), which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., effect must be enabled), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'osc_set_effect_param' for other effect adjustments. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Enable or disable an effect,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies system state.
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 a single, efficient sentence ('Enable or disable an effect') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'effect' means in this system (e.g., audio effects in an OSC-controlled mixer), how effects are identified beyond numbers 1-8, and what happens upon execution. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (effect number 1-8, on as boolean for enable/disable). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what the effects correspond to or default states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable or disable an effect' clearly states the action (enable/disable) and resource (an effect), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of effect (e.g., audio effect in a mixing console) or differentiate from sibling tools like osc_set_eq_on or osc_set_compressor_on, which suggests it's a general effect control but lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like osc_set_eq_on and osc_set_compressor_on that also enable/disable specific effects, there's no indication of which effect types this applies to or any prerequisites, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires special permissions, what happens if invalid values are provided, whether changes are immediate or require confirmation, or what feedback (if any) is provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward parameter-setting tool and is perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the parameter (success/failure indicators), whether there are side effects, or what the typical use cases are within the broader OSC/mixer control context. The description should provide more behavioral context given the tool's complexity.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (effect number, parameter number, value range). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('a parameter value for an effect'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on effect parameters rather than faders, mutes, or other mixer controls. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like osc_set_effect_mix or osc_set_effect_on, which also modify effects.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for setting various mixer parameters (faders, EQ, compression, etc.), there's no indication of when effect parameter adjustment is appropriate versus using other effect-related tools like osc_set_effect_mix or osc_set_effect_on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive write operation, what permissions are needed, whether changes are immediate or require confirmation, or what happens on error. For a parameter-setting tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this type of parameter-setting tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the gain (e.g., confirmation, error handling), doesn't mention side effects, and provides no context about the broader EQ system. Given the complexity of audio mixing and multiple sibling EQ tools, more guidance is needed.
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 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema (channel number range 1-32, EQ band 1-4, gain range -15 to +15 dB). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set EQ gain') and target ('for a channel band'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_eq_frequency', 'osc_set_eq_on', or 'osc_set_eq_q', which all modify EQ parameters for channels.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how this differs from other EQ-related tools like 'osc_set_eq_frequency' or 'osc_get_eq'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive write operation (implied by 'Set'), what permissions are needed, if changes are immediate or require confirmation, or any error conditions. The description adds no context beyond the basic action.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or side effects. Given the complexity of audio mixing tools and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed.
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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions and ranges in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how frequency interacts with band or channel). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('EQ frequency for a channel band'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'osc_set_eq' (which likely sets broader EQ parameters) and 'osc_set_eq_q' (which sets Q factor), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osc_set_eq' or 'osc_set_eq_q', nor any context about prerequisites (e.g., EQ must be enabled). The description only states what it does, not when or why to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, what happens if EQ is already in the target state, whether changes are immediate or reversible, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('channel' with range 1-32 and 'on' as boolean). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'EQ' refers to or channel context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and resource ('EQ for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'osc_set_eq' (which likely sets EQ parameters) and 'osc_set_eq_frequency' (which adjusts frequency), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for toggling EQ on/off, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., channel must exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to other EQ tools like 'osc_set_eq' or 'osc_get_eq'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Set' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or require confirmation, potential side effects on audio output, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the Q factor, whether there's confirmation of success, what the expected impact on audio is, or how this interacts with other EQ parameters. Given the complexity of audio processing and the presence of many related EQ tools, more context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter definitions (channel number, EQ band, Q factor with ranges). The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what's already in the schema. It mentions the parameters generically but provides no additional context about their interaction or practical usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('EQ Q factor for a channel band'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'osc_set_eq' or 'osc_set_eq_frequency', which also modify EQ parameters for channels.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for EQ manipulation (e.g., 'osc_set_eq', 'osc_set_eq_frequency', 'osc_set_eq_on'), there's no indication of how this specific Q factor setting relates to broader EQ configuration or when it should be preferred over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a write/mutation operation ('Set') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential range information. There is zero wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks information about return values, error handling, or system context (e.g., how this interacts with the mixer or emulator status from sibling tools). The minimal description leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (channel number range and fader level mapping). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'channel' and other tools or clarifying the dB mapping further. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the fader level') and target resource ('for a channel'), with a specific range (0.0 to 1.0) that adds precision. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_aux_fader' or 'osc_set_bus_fader', which perform similar fader-setting operations on different channel types.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for setting faders on different channel types (e.g., aux, bus, main), the description lacks context about its specific application, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Set') but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, or any side effects like affecting audio processing. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or interaction with other tools (e.g., 'osc_set_gate_on'), leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters with ranges (channel 1-32, threshold -80 to 0 dB). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('gate threshold for a channel'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_gate_on' or 'osc_get_gate', which handle related gate operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'osc_set_gate_on' (which likely toggles gate activation) or 'osc_get_gate' (which retrieves gate settings). The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation operation ('Enable or disable') but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether this affects audio routing or requires specific permissions), error handling, or response format. For a tool that modifies system state, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a state-changing operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool in a professional audio context (OSC/X32), more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('channel' as number 1-32, 'on' as boolean true/false). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'gate' means in this context or how enabling/disabling impacts the channel. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and resource ('gate for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_gate' (which might set gate parameters rather than just on/off state) or 'osc_get_gate' (which retrieves gate status), leaving some ambiguity about its specific role in the toolset.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the channel must exist or be configured), compare it to similar tools like 'osc_set_gate' (which might adjust other gate settings), or specify error conditions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets a fader level, implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it highly efficient and easy to understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, and does not provide usage guidance relative to siblings. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use.
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 100%, with both parameters ('matrix' and 'level') fully documented in the input schema regarding their types, ranges, and purposes. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('fader level for a matrix output'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_aux_fader' or 'osc_set_bus_fader', which perform similar fader-setting operations on different resources, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'osc_set_aux_fader' or 'osc_set_bus_fader' for comparison, nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., numeric value, units). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or usage context, which are important for a read operation in a system with many sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps, but behavioral aspects are underspecified.
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?
The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single parameter 'aux' with its type, description, and constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('fader level for an aux output'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'osc_get_bus_fader' by specifying 'aux output', but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_set_aux_fader'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to choose 'osc_get_aux_fader' over 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_get_bus_fader', or clarify its role compared to write operations like 'osc_set_aux_fader'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned source data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are important for a read operation in a system with many sibling tools. This results in a description that meets the bare minimum but could be more informative.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'channel' fully documented in the schema (type, description, min/max). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'input source' entails or how the channel number maps to physical inputs. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('input source for a channel'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_get_channel_name' or 'osc_set_channel_source', which might retrieve different channel attributes or perform write operations, leaving room for minor ambiguity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'osc_get_channel_name' for other channel properties or 'osc_set_channel_source' for write operations, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves EQ gain, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires special permissions, has side effects, or details about response format (e.g., numeric value, units). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential system interaction.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 low complexity (2 simple parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to fully compensate by not explaining the return value (e.g., gain in dB) or behavioral context, leaving room for improvement.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly defining 'channel' and 'band' with ranges. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'EQ gain' represents or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('EQ gain for a channel band'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'osc_set_eq' or 'osc_set_eq_frequency', which would require a 5.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'osc_set_eq' (for setting EQ) or other 'get' tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read operation with one well-documented parameter but no output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate context. It tells what the tool retrieves but doesn't explain the return format, units, or typical use cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is borderline adequate but lacks completeness for optimal agent understanding.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting the single 'channel' parameter with type, range, and requirement details. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('pan position for a channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'osc_set_pan' (which sets pan) and other 'osc_get_' tools that retrieve different mixer parameters. However, it doesn't specify what 'pan position' means in context (e.g., stereo balance control), which prevents a perfect score.
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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships with sibling tools like 'osc_set_pan' or other retrieval tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, latency considerations, error handling (e.g., invalid scene numbers), or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get', 'name', 'saved scene') contributes directly to understanding, making it appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no wasted content.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on what to expect (e.g., return format) would improve completeness for agent invocation.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'scene' fully documented in the schema (type, range, description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying scene retrieval, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('name of a saved scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'osc_scene_recall' or 'osc_scene_save' by focusing on retrieval rather than execution or storage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'osc_get_channel_name', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used for checking scene names before recall operations or how it relates to 'osc_scene_recall'. The description assumes context without explaining prerequisites or typical workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the send level is returned in (e.g., dB, percentage), or if there are any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get the send level'), making it immediately scannable and easy to understand at a glance.
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 simple read-only nature (implied by 'Get'), two well-documented parameters, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the return value format, error conditions, or how it fits within the broader OSC/X32 ecosystem represented by sibling tools, leaving some operational questions unanswered.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters with ranges (channel 1-32, bus 1-16). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what a 'send level' represents or how channel/bus numbering relates to the mixer's layout. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the send level') and resource ('from a channel to a mix bus'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_send_to_bus' (which likely sets rather than gets) or 'osc_get_fader' (which might get a different type of level), leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded namespace.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also involve 'get' operations (e.g., osc_get_fader, osc_get_mute, osc_get_pan), there's no indication of when this specific tool for send levels is appropriate versus other retrieval tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or contextual constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it saves the mixer state but doesn't mention whether this operation is destructive (overwrites existing scenes), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, clear sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for this simple operation and front-loads the essential 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?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context about behavioral implications, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency that's crucial for a state-modifying tool.
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?
The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between scene number and name, or provide context about what 'saving the mixer state' entails parameter-wise. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save') and the resource ('current mixer state as a scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'osc_scene_recall', which would be the natural alternative for scene-related operations.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osc_scene_recall' for retrieving scenes or other save/recall operations. The description states what it does but offers no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'Set[s] the send level', implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 (a write operation with three parameters) and the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or output expectations, which are important for a mutation tool in this context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting each parameter's purpose and constraints (e.g., channel number 1-32, aux number 1-6, level 0.0-1.0). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the send level') and the target ('from a channel to an aux output'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'osc_send_to_bus', which performs a similar function but to a bus output instead of an aux output, leaving room for potential confusion.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'osc_send_to_bus' for sending to buses or 'osc_set_aux_fader' for adjusting aux fader levels, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, has side effects, affects audio output immediately, or has any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for an agent.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and follows good front-loading principles.
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?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context about behavioral implications, usage distinctions from similar tools, and expected outcomes. The high schema coverage helps, but more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation of the 'level' parameter (range 0.0-1.0). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('main LR fader level'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osc_set_fader' or 'osc_set_main_pan', which would require more specific context about what makes the 'main LR fader' distinct.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like osc_set_fader, osc_set_aux_fader, osc_set_bus_fader), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus other fader-setting tools or related controls like pan settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens if the operation fails. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant or irrelevant details.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations and with many similar sibling tools, it should ideally clarify differentiation from alternatives and provide more behavioral context about this write operation.
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 100%, with the parameter 'pan' fully documented in the schema including its type, range, and description. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('pan position for the main LR mix'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'osc_set_pan' or 'osc_set_aux_pan', which appear to perform similar pan-setting operations on different targets.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'osc_set_pan' or 'osc_set_aux_pan'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not elaborate on potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but does not address behavioral aspects like return values or error handling, which could be useful for an AI agent despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no additional parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, aligning with the schema, which justifies a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('main LR fader level'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'osc_get_fader', which might retrieve fader levels for other channels, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'osc_get_fader' or 'osc_get_aux_fader'. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'overall mixer status and information' entails (e.g., format, scope). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies what the tool does but lacks details on the return format or behavioral context, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional semantic information is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('overall mixer status and information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'osc_get_emulator_status' or 'osc_get_fader', which also retrieve status information for specific components, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for getting specific mixer components (e.g., 'osc_get_fader', 'osc_get_eq'), the description lacks context about whether this is a general overview or should be used in specific scenarios, offering no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool opens an application, implying a side effect (launching software), but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it blocks until the app opens, requires specific permissions, or handles errors if X32-Edit is not installed. This leaves gaps for a tool with potential system interactions.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Open the X32-Edit application') and follows with the purpose. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 (launching an external app with potential system dependencies) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or integration context, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately avoids discussing inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly omits unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open') and the target resource ('X32-Edit application'), with a specific purpose ('to manually control the mixer or verify commands'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on launching an external application rather than sending OSC commands to the mixer, but could be more explicit about this distinction.
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 context ('to manually control the mixer or verify commands'), suggesting this tool is for hands-on interaction or debugging. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the many OSC command siblings (e.g., for automation vs. manual control), and does not mention prerequisites like having X32-Edit installed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it clearly indicates this is a write/mutation operation ('Set'), it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. The description provides only basic operational semantics.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately provides essential context. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's optimally concise for this tool's complexity level.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic operational information but lacks completeness. It doesn't address what happens after execution (success indicators, error responses), doesn't mention system state implications, and omits any behavioral constraints or side effects that would be important for safe agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the semantic meaning of pan values (-1.0=left, 0.0=center, 1.0=right), which goes beyond the schema's numeric range constraints. This provides valuable interpretation guidance for the agent.
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 specific action ('Set the pan position') and target resource ('for a channel'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like osc_set_aux_pan or osc_set_bus_pan that target different resources. It provides precise operational context with the numeric range explanation.
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 context through the parameter explanation (panning a channel), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like osc_set_main_pan or osc_set_bus_pan. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, timing, or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop') but does not describe what happens upon invocation (e.g., whether it's destructive, requires permissions, has side effects like terminating processes, or provides confirmation). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Stop the running X32 emulator server') contributes essential information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It does not explain behavioral aspects like what 'Stop' entails, potential errors, or confirmation of success, which are important for an agent to use it correctly without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, aligning with the input schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.
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 specific action ('Stop') and target resource ('the running X32 emulator server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'osc_start_emulator' and 'osc_get_emulator_status'. It uses precise terminology that aligns with the tool's name and function.
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 when an emulator is running, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'osc_start_emulator' to start it, or 'osc_get_emulator_status' to check status). It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving context inferred from the verb 'Stop'.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only status check ('Check if'), which implies no destructive effects. However, it doesn't mention potential latency, error conditions, or what specific status information is returned beyond running/not running.
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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place by clearly defining the tool's purpose.
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?
For a zero-parameter status check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format or potential error conditions. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable but leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description is clear about the operation.
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 specific action ('Check if') and target resource ('X32 emulator is currently running'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'osc_start_emulator' and 'osc_stop_emulator' by focusing on status checking rather than control operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to verify the emulator's operational state, which provides clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, though the sibling tools suggest this is for status checking versus control operations.
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 discloses that the tool starts a server for testing, implying it's a setup/initialization operation, but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or how to verify success. The description adds basic context but misses key operational details.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, method, and rationale without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains focused throughout.
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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete in stating what the tool does and why. However, for a tool that starts a server, it lacks details on expected outcomes (e.g., success indicators, error handling) or integration with other tools (e.g., how to check status with 'osc_get_emulator_status'), leaving gaps in operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description does not add unnecessary information.
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 specific action ('Start'), the target resource ('local X32 emulator server'), and the implementation detail ('from the emulator/X32 binary'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'osc_stop_emulator' by specifying the opposite action, and from other tools that interact with a running mixer by focusing on server startup for testing purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'so you can test without a physical mixer', providing clear context for its purpose. However, it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., if the emulator is already running) or name alternatives (though sibling 'osc_stop_emulator' is implied as a counterpart).
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![osc-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anteriovieira/osc-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anteriovieira/osc-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![osc-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anteriovieira/osc-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anteriovieira/osc-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/anteriovieira/osc-mcp-server'

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