Configure a Lemon Studio project's swing, main volume, main pitch, and song metadata such as title, author, genre, and comments in one call.
Swing 0..1, main volume 0..1 (0.8 = unity), main pitch in cents, and the song info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| genre | No | ||
| swing | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| comments | No | ||
| main_pitch | No | ||
| main_volume | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It gives useful ranges for swing and volume, but does not state that this is a mutation, whether it is partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted/null fields, or whether changes are reversible.
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 fragmented sentence that is too terse to be helpful. It is not front-loaded with the action or purpose, and 'and the song info' is vague filler rather than an earned explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It provides some parameter hints but omits behavior, partial-update semantics, and clear usage guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies three of seven parameters (swing, main volume, main pitch) plus a vague 'song info' for genre/title/author/comments. It adds important details like 0.8 = unity and pitch in cents, but leaves half the parameters and all null/partial-update semantics unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a fragmentary parameter list rather than a statement of what the tool does. Only the tool name implies that it sets project settings; the description never says so explicitly nor distinguishes it from siblings like set_tempo or set_time_signature.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when to use a more specific sibling instead, or whether omitted parameters leave existing settings unchanged. The agent must infer all usage context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.