play_notesPlays a tune on the VEX AIM robot's speaker using note strings with optional durations, then waits until playback completes or 30 seconds pass.
Play a tune on the robot's speaker and wait for it to finish (30 seconds at most).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes | Notes with optional lengths in ms, e.g. "C5:400 E5:400 G5:800" or "C6 R:200 C6" (R is a rest). Octaves 5-8; # sharp, b flat. | |
| volume | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already covering safety (non-destructive, closed-world, non-read-only), the description adds important behavioral detail: it blocks until playback finishes and caps the wait at 30 seconds. It does not describe timeout fallback or note parsing failures, but it is substantively better than annotations alone.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the max-duration caveat is appropriately placed.
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 simple two-parameter audio tool, the description provides the critical blocking/timeout context, annotations cover safety, and the schema details the notes format. It omits any volume mention and timeout behavior, so it is not fully complete, but adequate.
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 50%: notes are richly documented in the schema, while volume is only bounded/defaulted. The description adds no parameter meaning for either notes or volume. The schema carries the usable semantics, so this is adequate but not enriched by the description.
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?
States a specific verb ('Play') and resource ('tune on the robot's speaker'), and adds the blocking duration. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling audio tools such as play_sound or say, so it stops short of 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no conditions for choosing this over play_sound, say, or other audio-output siblings. The description explains behavior but not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.