Import MIDI parts with assigned instruments into a single revision, requiring explicit notes-only acknowledgment for unsupported events.
Import selected MIDI parts with explicitly assigned instruments in one revision. Unsupported events require explicit notes_only acknowledgment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| tracks | Yes | ||
| notes_only | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| adopt_tempo | No | ||
| base_revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that unsupported events require notes_only acknowledgment, hinting at a behavioral constraint, but doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or return format.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a caveat, maintaining a clean structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the revision concept, track requirements, or parameter meanings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.
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 coverage is 0%; the description only implicitly references notes_only and instruments. It doesn't explain project_id, base_revision, request_id, path, tracks structure, or adopt_tempo, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the action (import), resource (selected MIDI parts), and a key requirement (explicitly assigned instruments) in one revision. It distinguishes from inspection/export tools but doesn't contrast with other import tools like asset_import.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or conditions, leaving selection to inference from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.