Convert a Pyxel sound or music slot into a WAV file and extract measurable audio data for inspection.
Render one Pyxel sound or music slot to WAV and return measurable audio data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| errors | Yes | ||
| channels | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| sample_rate | No | ||
| peak_amplitude | No | ||
| duration_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool renders to WAV and returns measurable audio data. However, it does not clarify whether the WAV is written to output_path, whether the script is executed, or what side effects might occur beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the core operation, output format, and return value type without wasting words.
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?
The tool has three required parameters and no schema descriptions, yet the description explains only the audio target concept. It leaves the script parameter and the mutual exclusivity or interaction between music and sound unaddressed, making the definition incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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?
The description partially documents the target parameter by mentioning sound or music slot, but it does not explain the required 'script' parameter or 'output_path' semantics. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the total lack of parameter explanations.
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 states a specific action ('render') and resource ('one Pyxel sound or music slot to WAV'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from the image/tilemap/palette reader siblings by focusing on audio output.
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 context is implied: use this tool when you need audio data from a Pyxel sound or music slot. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no alternative tools are named, and no prerequisites such as needing a loaded Pyxel script are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.