List songs in a folder, showing title, speed, page count, and note counts per channel.
List the songs (00..99) in one folder with title, speed, page count and note counts per channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | Folder name under the music root (e.g. "BAICHUAN"), or an absolute path. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, and it does state the operation is non-destructive (listing) and enumerates the return fields. However, it omits details like pagination, error behavior on nonexistent folders, or whether the listing is sorted, which are important for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence, front-loading the action and scope. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured to improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, list operation), the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., empty folder, invalid folder) and does not mention output format details, which would be helpful since no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'folder' parameter with an example and explains it can be a folder name or absolute path. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, but since coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'songs' within a folder, including the range (00..99) and the returned attributes (title, speed, page count, note counts per channel). It is distinct from siblings like lc_list_folders and lc_read_song, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a listing operation for a folder but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over lc_read_song or lc_list_folders, nor does it mention prerequisites like checking status or folder existence. It lacks any explicit when-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.