Validates supplied UTF-8 cue or lyric text against the DanceMoves API to catch timing-file issues before use, without fetching URLs or writing files.
Validate supplied UTF-8 cue/lyric text using the DanceMoves server API; no URL fetch or file write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arguments | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.22Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully reinforces that no URL is fetched and no file is written, ruling out hidden side effects, but says nothing about what rules are checked, how failures are reported, or whether validation is strict or advisory.
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?
A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect disclaimer trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness comes at the cost of the parameter detail noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a validation tool with undocumented nested parameters the definition should still convey what is validated and what the kind/filename switches do. As written, an agent could call it correctly only by guessing at the parameter semantics.
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 parameters are nested under an 'arguments' object with three undocumented fields. The description mentions cue/lyric text but does not explain the 'kind' enum (cue vs lyric), the role of 'filename', or the 1 MB text ceiling, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (validate) and resource (cue/lyric text), and the 'no URL fetch or file write' clause distinguishes it from file- or capture-oriented siblings like dancemoves_validate_motion_capture. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is narrow enough that confusion is unlikely.
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?
Usage is implied: pass in UTF-8 cue or lyric text and it will be validated. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of what validation gate this satisfies, and no pointer to related tools for validating other artifacts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.