Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_reaper_projectsD
  1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness1/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Tool has no description.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Tool has no description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose1/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Tool has no description.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Tool has no description.

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

• parse_reaper_projectD
  1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness1/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Tool has no description.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Tool has no description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose1/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Tool has no description.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Tool has no description.

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

• analyze_audio_filesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by explaining that measurements are taken from source files on disk, hence pre-FX and pre-fader, and that the whole_file parameter changes the analysis scope. It also indicates the return shape (JSON with per-item analysis, warnings, skipped items). This gives an agent a clear sense of what happens when the tool runs, beyond a simple read operation.

  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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short paragraph clarifying the measurement source, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every part earns its place, and the most important scoping caveat (pre-FX) is front-loaded. It is detailed without being verbose.

  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?

  For a moderately complex analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and the essential behavioral context. It hints at the return structure but does not specify the exact fields within the per-item analysis (e.g., peak, RMS). This is a minor gap; the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully compensates. It explains each parameter: project_path ('Path to .RPP file'), track_filter ('Optional substring to filter track names'), and whole_file ('Analyze entire source files instead of only the region each item actually plays. Off by default.'). This is thorough, clear, and adds semantic meaning the schema lacks.

  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 opens with a clear verb-resource combination: 'Analyze audio in a Reaper project for mixing feedback.' This directly distinguishes it from siblings like find_reaper_projects (finding projects), parse_reaper_project (parsing structure), and list_installed_fx (listing FX). The purpose is specific and actionable.

  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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing. It does not mention that for project structure one should use parse_reaper_project, or that for finding projects one should use find_reaper_projects. The pre-FX note implies a constraint but does not state 'use this when you need pre-FX analysis' or list alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer when to select this tool.

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

• list_installed_fxA
  4.2/5.0
  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 describes the return JSON structure (name, type, path, manufacturer), which is useful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., Reaper must be running), or error conditions. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable, but the description could have explicitly stated non-destructiveness and any environment assumptions.

  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 concise and well-structured with a Google-style docstring. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter explanations and return format. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is easy to scan and parse.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, both parameters with their allowable values, and the return JSON fields. It does not over-explain or omit essential details. The tool's context (installed plugins in Reaper) is adequately covered.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema provides only titles and nullability, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: plugin_type restricts to specific types (VST2, VST3, AU, JS, CLAP) and search_query filters by name, manufacturer, or type. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema and gives the agent actionable guidance.

  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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all installed FX/plugins in Reaper'). It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools (find_reaper_projects, parse_reaper_project, analyze_audio_files), which deal with projects and audio analysis rather than plugin discovery. No further clarification needed.

  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 by demonstrating filter options (plugin_type, search_query), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no closely related sibling tools, the lack of explicit routing is not critical, but it still does not offer clear context on when one would invoke this function (e.g., 'Use this to discover available plugins before processing'). It is adequate but not explicit.

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