Toggle whether the active tuning scale applies to the pitch bend rate, enabling or disabling scale-aware pitch bend in PolyNodes.
Turn tuning scale application on PB rate 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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns: JSON confirmation,' which is already implied by the output schema and says nothing about what enabling/disabling actually changes in the audio graph.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and short, which is good, but the Args/Returns boilerplate contributes little ('JSON confirmation' is filler given an output schema exists). It is not bloated, but part of it does not earn its place.
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 mutation toggle with no annotation-level explanation of what is being toggled, the description leaves the agent guessing about the effect on playback rate and tuning scale. The output schema excuses explaining return values, but the core behavioral effect remains undefined.
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 as 0% and the description merely restates the parameter name ('params: state'). It does not explain that state is numeric 0.0/1.0, that mapping only appearing in the nested schema. It adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb ('turn ... on or off') and a specific resource ('tuning scale application on PB rate'), which differentiates it from the many sibling switches (granular_switch, filter_switch, tuning_res_switch). The domain jargon is opaque, but the action and target are identifiable.
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 indication of when to use this switch versus the closely related polynodes_tuning_res_switch or the playback-rate tools. There is no context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.