qidi-mcp

beep

Idempotent

Sounds the printer's audible alert to get a person's attention at the machine; set duration up to 5000 ms and repeat count.

Instructions

Sound the printer's beeper. duration_ms is capped at 5000. Useful to get a human's attention at the machine.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "beep"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repeat`	No
`duration_ms`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real constraint that is absent from the schema: duration_ms is capped at 5000. It does not mention whether beep blocks, how repeat interacts with the duration cap, or any rate limiting, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the limiting constraint immediately after. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is operationally simple. The one material gap is the undocumented repeat parameter, which an agent must guess at from the schema default alone.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. It documents duration_ms with a hard cap of 5000 that the schema's bare "integer, default 200" does not convey, but the repeat parameter is never mentioned at all and remains completely opaque.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Sound the printer's beeper." An agent can tell this apart from pause_print or get_printer_status immediately. It stops short of a 5 because it never names or contrasts the other human-attention siblings (display_message, set_led), so the differentiation is by name alone rather than stated.

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?

"Useful to get a human's attention at the machine" gives a clear situational context for invoking the tool, which is more than most sibling definitions offer. There are no exclusions and no routing advice toward display_message or set_led as alternative notification channels, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server