messier-live
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct: live_status is explicitly described as the cheap telemetry option versus get_session_info, and set_fx_macro, fx_sweep, and fx_pulse are differentiated as set/ramp/punch. Minor overlap exists between load_to_deck and prepare_deck, but descriptions clarify the intended use case.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern like set_fx_macro, fire_deck, and set_device_parameter. There are minor deviations with noun-style names like live_status, deck_status, and crate_list, plus bare verbs like play, stop, and diagnose, but the overall convention remains readable.
Tool Count3/5At 25 tools, this is on the heavy borderline for an MCP server. The broad scope—transport, deck management, FX automation, device parameter control, and crate library—largely justifies each tool, but the set feels slightly bloated and some tools could plausibly be consolidated.
Completeness4/5The core DJ performance workflow is well covered: transport, deck load/fire/stop, volume and crossfade control, FX sweeps and pulses, device parameter escape hatches, and crate-based track suggestions. Minor gaps exist such as no open_project, no direct crossfader position control, and limited non-deck track manipulation, but these do not block the primary use case.
Average 3.6/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the stop action but doesn't explain what happens when no clip is playing, whether the deck stops entirely, how clip_index affects behavior, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though brevity comes at the cost of missing important usage and parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, an output schema present but not detailed in the description, and an undocumented 'clip_index' parameter, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It doesn't explain the optional parameter's meaning or provide enough context to choose this tool over sibling alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the action targets a clip on a 'deck', which loosely maps to the 'deck' parameter, but 'clip_index' is completely unexplained despite being a parameter with a default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and the resource ('the clip playing on a deck'). It distinguishes itself from the global sibling 'stop' by specifying deck-level scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related tools like 'fire_deck' or 'stop'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stop', 'fire_deck', or 'play'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'Save,' which implies a persistence/write operation, but it does not disclose whether the current file is overwritten, whether project_name triggers a save-as behavior, or what happens when project_name is null.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler and the main action front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the apparent simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and covers return values, the description omits essential behavioral context around the optional project_name parameter. An agent cannot tell whether saving with null differs from saving with a name, or whether the tool overwrites the existing Live set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about the optional project_name parameter or its null default. The parameter name offers some inference, but the description does not clarify how project_name affects the save operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Save') and resource ('the current Live set'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but none of the sibling tools appear to perform a save operation, so confusion risk is low.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. The description does not mention prerequisites, whether this should be called after edits, or whether there is an alternative for saving under a different name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behavior: the macro is applied for N bars and then cut off, indicating the effect is temporary. However, it does not clarify whether this mutates state, requires a loaded deck, affects current playback, or leaves any residual state behind.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. The effect examples at the end add flavor but are not strictly necessary; despite that, nothing is redundant and the structure is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema whose contents are unknown, the description is not enough for confident invocation. It leaves required parameter semantics, usage context, and expected behavior gaps. It is adequate for understanding the general idea but not complete enough for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions 'intensity', 'N bars' (bars), and 'macro', but the required 'deck' parameter is entirely absent. It also provides no accepted value ranges or formats for macro or deck, leaving required parameters under-explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete action with a specific resource: 'Punch a PERF macro to intensity for N bars, then cut it.' It clearly communicates a transient macro pulse effect and includes evocative examples of the result. It is less than a 5 because 'PERF' is unexplained and the relationship to sibling tools like set_fx_macro is not explicitly distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fx_macro or fx_sweep. The description implies a performance-oriented effect but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and effect examples alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the value range 0.0–1.0 but does not explain what setting a macro does, whether the macro must already exist, potential side effects, or error behavior. This is thin for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with no filler. The examples and value range earn their place, though the fragment 'value 0.0–1.0' could be integrated more cleanly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is not sufficient. It lacks valid deck values, acceptable macro names, and guidance on how this tool relates to the many sibling FX tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming parameters and adding the value range and macro examples, but it leaves deck identifier format and accepted macro names underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a PERF-rack macro on a deck by name') and provides concrete examples of macro names ('Glitch', 'Space', 'Crush'). It is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_device_parameter or fx_sweep.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fx_sweep, fx_pulse, or set_device_parameter. The description only explains the mechanics, not the selection criteria or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the action is a state-changing start operation, but doesn't state what happens if the transport is already running, whether it fails when no session is loaded, or whether starting the transport has side effects on recording or decks. These are material unknowns for an agent deciding whether and when to invoke it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is maximally efficient and front-loaded, with zero filler. It earns a strong conciseness score, but it borders on under-specification; a single clarifying clause about behavior when already playing would have made it both concise and more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with an output schema covering return values, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action and the resource. However, the complete absence of annotations, edge-case behavior, and sibling differentiation leaves clear gaps in what an agent knows before invoking it, making this a minimum-viable definition rather than a complete one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; no parameter documentation gap exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Start') plus a concrete resource ('Live's transport'), which conveys the core operation and is distinguishable from siblings like stop, fire_deck, and load_to_deck. A slight deduction because 'transport' is domain jargon and the description doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the meaning is clear in the Ableton Live context established by the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives. The closest sibling, 'stop', is the obvious inverse, and 'fire_deck' starts deck-level playback rather than the main transport, but neither distinction is stated anywhere. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and general domain knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only 'analyzed' tracks are included and what fields are returned, and 'list' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or the practical effect of the limit parameter, but these are secondary for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, filter, and returned fields are all front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a low-complexity list operation, especially since an output schema exists. However, it leaves the 'limit' parameter undocumented and offers no guidance on when this list should be used relative to track-selection or recommendation siblings, so it is not fully complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. An agent can guess that 'limit' restricts the result count, but the description provides no semantic detail about defaults, maximums, or how limit interacts with the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('crate'), and a meaningful qualifier ('analyzed tracks'), and it enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from the action-oriented sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any of them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied: call this when you need to inspect analyzed tracks in the crate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no context about how this relates to tools like suggest_next_track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does state the core effect (zero all macros) and an important compatibility trait (renamed macros). It does not mention reversibility, side effects, or whether this is a destructive reset, so transparency is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is two short sentences with no filler; the primary action and outcome are front-loaded, and 'Works with renamed macros' earns its place as a compatibility caveat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to infer the general operation, but the missing deck-parameter semantics and lack of explicit usage direction leave gaps. It is a minimum-viable description rather than a fully self-sufficient one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'deck' parameter beyond restating that the operation happens on a deck. An agent still needs to know whether deck is a name, index, or ID and what values are valid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Zero all PERF-rack macros on a deck') and the intended clean-slate outcome, and 'all' distinguishes it from singular macro tools like set_fx_macro. It relies on domain terms like PERF-rack, but in context this is specific rather than vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'clean slate' and 'Works with renamed macros', suggesting this is the tool to reset every macro even when macros have been renamed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance remains implied rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a mutating setter, but it does not mention side effects, valid tempo ranges, prerequisites, whether the change is immediate, or whether it affects playback.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It states the action and target clearly and wastes no space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, without annotations or parameter constraints, an agent may be uncertain about valid BPM values and the operational implications of changing the tempo.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines 'bpm' as a number with no description. The description adds semantic context by identifying it as 'session tempo in BPM', which clarifies the unit and role. However, it does not compensate for the lack of constraints such as accepted range, integer vs. decimal values, or rounding behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Set'), a resource ('session tempo'), and the unit ('BPM'). It is instantly distinguishable from the sibling tools, none of which handle session tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided: there is no mention of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative might be preferred. The intended use is only implicit from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 goes beyond the name by explaining the timing behavior of both quantize modes: 'next_bar' waits via telemetry, while 'global' fires immediately and lets Live align it. This is meaningful non-obvious behavior, though it doesn't mention potential side effects on currently playing clips.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and the quantize behavior is explained compactly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for the core firing action and quantize modes, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, 'clip_index' semantics are missing and there is no explicit guidance on how deck identifiers relate to siblings like 'deck_status' or 'setup_decks', leaving moderate gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains 'quantize' values; 'deck' is only indirectly implied as the target, and 'clip_index' is entirely unexplained. An agent would not know from the description how to select a specific clip on a deck.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fire a deck's clip.' This clearly identifies the action and target, distinguishing it from global transport siblings like 'play' and 'stop_deck'. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative or state what it is not, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives contextual guidance for the 'quantize' parameter by contrasting 'next_bar' (waits for downbeat) with 'global' (fires immediately). However, it does not state when to choose this tool over siblings like 'play', 'load_to_deck', or 'stop_deck', leaving tool-selection guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait ('persist the mapping'), indicating a state-changing operation, but it does not state whether existing mappings are overwritten, whether the mapping takes effect immediately, or any prerequisites such as Live being running.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Map decks A and B') before the target and persistence detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter setup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool, and an output schema exists to cover returns, but there are gaps: no usage context, no mention of side effects on existing mappings, and no clarification of track index bounds. The description is enough for a basic call but not fully self-contained for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description connects 'decks A and B' to 'track indices', which maps naturally to deck_a_track and deck_b_track. It adds the 'Session View' context, yet it does not explain valid index ranges, defaults, or 0-based semantics beyond what the property names already imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('decks A and B') with a clear target ('Session View track indices') and adds persistence. It distinguishes setup_decks from siblings like deck_status or load_to_deck by naming the pair-mapping action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use setup_decks versus alternatives. It does not mention whether this is a one-time initialization, when it should be called, or why it should be preferred over sibling tools such as prepare_deck or load_to_deck.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly names the action and target, but it does not explain side effects such as whether running clips are stopped, whether the action is idempotent, or what happens to recording. For a simple transport control this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single four-word sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless control command, and the key target ('Live's transport') is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: an agent knows what to invoke and needs no additional input details. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that stop_deck exists for individual decks, but that absence is not a significant blocker.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% schema description coverage. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop Live's transport.' This makes the tool's core purpose clear and the 'transport' target distinguishes it from deck-level operations such as stop_deck. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like play or stop_deck in the text, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of play, stop_deck, or conditions under which stopping the transport is appropriate. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the phrase 'Live's transport.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does explain the up/down ramp values and the release snap-back. However, it does not say whether the action mutates saved state, requires a loaded deck, or is asynchronous over N bars, which would matter for a timed FX tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences pack the core behavior, parameter directions, and a real-world use case with no filler. The most important behavioral rule (ramp directions) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description covers the main effect. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema field descriptions and no annotations, the undefined deck and macro arguments leave an agent guessing before it can safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameters; it defines direction and release and gives 'N bars' for bars. Deck and macro are left entirely unexplained, and there is no value format for macro or allowed bar ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('ramp a PERF macro over N bars') and concrete use cases (filter sweep, riser, build-and-drop). It clearly separates this from sibling effects tools like set_fx_macro or fx_pulse by describing an automated ramping behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied through the musical examples and the build-and-drop note, but the description never explicitly contrasts fx_sweep with set_fx_macro or fx_pulse. An agent can infer the intended scenario, but not confidently know when to choose this over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does state the action is an absolute set with a calibrated range and the unity point at 0.85. However, it does not disclose side effects such as immediate audio impact or any dependence on deck state, relying on the verb 'Set' to convey mutating behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that earns its place: every phrase either states the operation or adds the essential calibration detail. No filler or repetition of the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity setter with only two required parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the key semantic needed to call it correctly. It could be more complete by documenting deck identifier values or prerequisites, but it is functionally sufficient for the agent to make an informed call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It gives essential semantics for 'volume' — the 0.0–1.0 scale and the 0 dB reference — but says nothing about acceptable formats for the 'deck' identifier, leaving that parameter under-specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb ('Set'), resource ('a deck's fader'), and the parameter domain (0.0–1.0 volume) in one short sentence. The possessive 'deck's' differentiates it from the sibling 'crossfade' tool, which targets the master crossfader rather than a deck's own volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of related deck tools such as crossfade, eq_kill, or load_to_deck, and no mention of prerequisites such as a deck needing to be loaded. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the word 'fader'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Current' and 'state' imply a read-only snapshot rather than a mutation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or note any prerequisites or latency characteristics. It is consistent and non-contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with three concrete data categories, all front-loaded and none wasted. Every clause adds information an agent can use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument status tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the main returned content areas. It loses a point because the lack of an explicit read-only statement and sibling differentiation leaves some selection context to be inferred.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The empty schema and 100% schema description coverage already make invocation unambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a status/snapshot resource for deck mapping, what is playing on each deck, and transport state. It is not a tautology of the title, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling status tools like live_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The content implies use when the agent needs current per-deck state and transport information, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided. There are no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a low-level, unrestricted operation ('any raw device parameter') and frames it as an escape hatch, implying directness and potential risk. However, it does not explain side effects, validation, persistence, error behavior, or whether changes are reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and context, with a useful parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, yet the description does not explain how to discover valid parameter names, how device_index relates to decks/tracks, or what value ranges are acceptable. An agent would need external knowledge or sibling tools like get_device_parameters to call this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of deck, device_index, value, or how parameter_name should be formatted. The phrase 'by name' gives minimal context for parameter_name, but the other three parameters remain semantically underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('raw device parameter by name on a deck's track'), and its role as an escape hatch. It distinguishes itself from macro-based sibling tools by emphasizing direct raw parameter access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this tool when a macro doesn't cover a parameter, which gives a clear condition for selecting it over macro-oriented siblings like set_fx_macro. It does not mention alternatives for reading parameters or other non-macro cases, but the core guidance is solid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Check' implies a non-mutating diagnostic operation, and mentioning both TCP and UDP gives useful scope, but it does not state side effects, whether any connection state is altered, or what constitutes a successful check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the key information: check both channels and which protocols are involved. There is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers the essential scope well, and an output schema exists to describe return values. It could mention when to run the diagnostic, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this from being a major gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Check', and identifies the exact resource: both channels to Ableton, TCP command port and UDP telemetry. This clearly distinguishes the tool as a connectivity diagnostic, unlike the operation-focused sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as live_status or get_session_info. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no stated context or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Dump' and 'exploring' imply a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens with an invalid device_index, or any permission requirements. These are meaningful gaps, though the read-only nature is reasonably inferable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result, then adds a practical purpose. Every part contributes directly to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and the description covers the return content and purpose. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites: how to identify a deck, how to obtain a valid device_index, and the relationship to list_deck_devices. This prevents the description from being fully self-sufficient for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It only loosely connects 'deck' and 'device' via 'on a deck's track' and 'a device's parameter list'; it does not explain how to specify deck, whether device_index is zero-based, or how to discover valid device indices. The parameter names in the schema do some work, but the description adds minimal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Dump'), the resource ('a device's parameter list on a deck's track'), and the specific content returned (names, values, ranges). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_device_parameter (which sets rather than gets) and list_deck_devices (which lists devices rather than parameters).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the intended use case: 'for exploring a plugin ... before automating it.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as 'use list_deck_devices to find the device index first.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Snapshot' implies a non-mutating read operation, and the listed contents clarify what is fetched, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe any potential failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core concept 'Full session snapshot from Live' before listing contents. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the data scope and implies a read operation. The only gap is the missing relationship to sibling tools, but that does not prevent correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to document beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb-plus-resource operation: a 'Full session snapshot from Live' and lists concrete contents ('tracks, clips, tempo'). This clearly distinguishes it from status-only or deck-focused sibling tools, even though those siblings are not named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like live_status or deck_status. Usage is only implied as 'full session snapshot', with no exclusions or routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the scope is stated, but the description does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, error conditions, or dependencies such as a valid deck being loaded. This is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one tight sentence with the action and object front-loaded, followed by a purpose clause. Every part contributes; no filler or repetition of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, not explaining the return structure is fine. The description gives the operation and use case, but it leaves a real gap on how to populate the required 'deck' parameter and what counts as a device in this context. This is a simple tool, so the gaps are relatively minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds almost no parameter guidance beyond the word 'deck'. It does not specify the expected format or valid values for the deck parameter (e.g., deck ID vs. name), which an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The single parameter's name is self-referential but not explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific operation (List), a specific resource (devices and their indices on a deck's track), and a reason (FX tools need the right rack/plugin). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_device_parameters and set_device_parameter, which concern device parameters rather than device enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose clause 'so FX tools can be pointed at the right rack/plugin' gives a clear context for when to call it: before configuring FX targeting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended use is clear enough from the sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the core behavior well: it fires the target deck on the next bar and ramps volumes over a configurable duration. However, it does not clarify behavior when `fire_incoming` is false, nor prerequisites like deck state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and conveys the operation's timing and volume behavior without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for the core crossfade behavior and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But it omits the role of `fire_incoming` and any expected deck state, leaving a small but real gap for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to `bars` (ramp duration) and `to_deck` ('incoming deck'), but it does not explain `fire_incoming` at all. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is partial compensation; the missing parameter semantics keep it from scoring higher.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific operation, 'beat-synced crossfade', and details the exact sequence: fire the incoming deck on the next bar, then ramp incoming up and outgoing down over `bars` bars. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_deck or set_deck_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'beat-synced crossfade' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer when this is the appropriate choice from the name and surrounding context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses that playback will not start, but it does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting an existing clip, deck readiness requirements, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key behavior and the important non-behavior are both stated efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers the core action and the non-playback guarantee. However, it omits context about overwriting behavior and clip_index semantics, which an agent might need to invoke it safely in a real session.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does map 'audio file' to file_path, 'deck' to deck, and 'clip slot' to clip_index, but it provides no details about valid formats, index range, or how the default clip_index behaves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('audio file into a deck's clip slot'), and the parenthetical 'does not start playback' distinguishes it from playback-oriented siblings like play and fire_deck. This gives an agent a clear, unambiguous function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the intended use clear: load an audio file without triggering playback. It implies when to choose this tool over playback tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the playback exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool mutates state by killing or restoring an EQ band and mentions the device requirement, but it does not explain consequences such as whether killing nullifies the band, whether restore is a true inverse, or what happens if the required device is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite and band values are stated efficiently in the second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete. It covers the operation, prerequisite, and allowed band values. The only notable gap is the undefined 'deck' parameter format, which is a minor omission given the other contextual clues.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines band as 'low | mid | high' and implies the restore behavior, but the 'deck' parameter remains purely a string with no format or identification guidance, and the mapping of the 'restore' boolean to kill/restore is only implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Kill (or restore)') and a specific resource ('an EQ band on a deck'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also differentiates it from sibling tools like kill_all_fx by narrowing the scope to a single EQ band on a single deck.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating the prerequisite condition: an 'EQ Three' device must be on the deck track. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the prerequisite is enough to guide when this tool is applicable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavioral logic: ranking candidates by BPM range, Camelot key compatibility, and requested energy movement. However, with no annotations and all parameters optional, it does not clarify side effects (if any), what happens when no input is provided, or how the target crate is selected. The main ranking behavior is transparent, but the edge-case behavior is not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences: the first states the purpose and ranking rules, the second gives the input contract. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information appears first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for the common invocation path, but gaps remain: the tool may be called with zero required parameters, the description does not say how the crate is chosen, and 'limit' is left undocumented. The output schema likely covers return shape, so that omission is not penalized, but the input/selection ambiguity matters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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. It does for four of five parameters: bpm (±8%), camelot (compatible key), energy_direction ('up'|'down'|'hold'), and current_file (one of two input modes). Only 'limit' lacks any semantic explanation, which keeps this from being a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('crate tracks'), then sharpens it with concrete criteria: BPM tolerance, Camelot compatibility, and energy direction. This makes its job unmistakable and clearly distinct from the DJ-tool siblings, which are about playback, effects, and device control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly communicates the intended use — choose the next compatible track from a crate — and even explains how to provide the current musical context (file path or bpm+camelot). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling appears to overlap with this recommendation role, so the guidance is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently reveals the side effect of setting Live's tempo when match_tempo=True and warns against mid-mix use. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors such as whether the deck starts playing, errors, or the state of the previous track.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence, front-loading the core action before the conditional side effect and usage warning. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only three simple parameters and an output schema (per context signals), the description covers the main action, side effect, and usage timing. It could specify deck value formats or the relationship to crate_list, but the existing description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: file_path is implied to be a crate track path, deck is the target deck, and match_tempo is fully explained as enabling BPM-based tempo setting. This adds meaningful semantics beyond bare parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Load a crate track onto a deck', and additionally explains the optional tempo-matching behavior. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like load_to_deck and set_tempo by combining deck loading with tempo setting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly provides contextual guidance: 'use when starting a set, not mid-mix', which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and when it is not. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to route usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is cheap/realtime and reads telemetry state, implying a non-mutating, low-cost operation. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, but 'status' and 'telemetry' strongly signal a read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and key usage guidance are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's decision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless status tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and why it should be preferred over a sibling. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports realtime transport state (playing, tempo, bar/beat, levels) from telemetry, using specific verb-like framing and resource identification. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_session_info, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance: use this cheap tool for locating 'where are we in the music' instead of get_session_info. This directly tells the agent when to prefer this tool over a named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: