Parse SMF 0/1 MIDI files to extract notes and timing, while rejecting variable tempo and reporting unsupported controllers or program changes.
Parse SMF 0/1 notes and timing. Report unsupported controllers/program changes; variable tempo is rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses important constraints: only SMF 0/1 are supported, variable tempo is rejected, and unsupported controllers/program changes are reported. It does not explicitly declare side-effect-free behavior, but 'parse' and 'report' strongly imply a read-only inspection.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the input format scope, what is parsed, what is reported, and a clear rejection condition.
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?
Given the tool has a single obvious parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational behavior: accepted input format, main data extracted, unsupported-event reporting, and a key rejection case. It does not detail output structure or error handling, but for a low-complexity inspection tool this is reasonably complete.
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 schema only defines 'path' as a string with minLength 1, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly define the path parameter, but 'Parse SMF 0/1' implies that 'path' should point to a Standard MIDI File. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not fully compensate for the lack of any parameter-level 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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and a concrete resource ('SMF 0/1 notes and timing'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like midi_import and export_midi by emphasizing inspection and reporting of unsupported events.
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?
The description gives clear context: use this tool to parse and inspect Standard MIDI File 0/1 note and timing data, and to detect unsupported controllers/program changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the inspection-oriented phrasing sufficiently implies when it is appropriate compared to import/export siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.