Toggle the Black Hole DSP interactable on or off in PolyNodes spatial audio synthesis. Provide state 0 for off, 1 for on to receive JSON confirmation.
Turn the Black Hole DSP interactable on or off.
Args: params: state.
Returns: JSON confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable mutation. The description adds only 'Returns: JSON confirmation', which is redundant given an output schema exists, and says nothing about latency, affected state, or side effects beyond the annotations.
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 lead sentence is well front-loaded with the action and target, but the boilerplate 'Args:' and 'Returns:' blocks add little and the Args line is effectively word-for-word filler ('params: state').
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 single-parameter switch with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient: the agent can identify the tool and know its return is a JSON confirmation. It lacks any note about what state the Black Hole DSP is left in or how it interacts with the force/whitehole siblings.
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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate, but 'params: state' merely restates the parameter name and conveys nothing about the accepted values (0.0 off / 1.0 on). The only real semantics live in the nested schema definition, not the description.
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 and resource ('Turn the Black Hole DSP interactable on or off'), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like polynodes_whitehole_switch or polynodes_blackhole_force. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource naming makes the scope obvious.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the closely related whitehole_switch, blackhole_force, or generic switch tools, and no prerequisites or context are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.