analyze_barsExtract per-bar audio metrics (level dB, six band energies, spectral centroid, onset count, chroma chord) from a music project for text-based DAW analysis.
Per-bar table (max 32 bars): level dB, 6 band energies, spectral centroid, onset count, chroma chord.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bars | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only partially meets it. It does surface one genuine behavioral trait not present in the schema: results are capped at 32 bars, which signals truncation. It says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, cost, or whether analysis has 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the key noun ('Per-bar table') and the cap, then lists the columns. No filler, though it is telegraphic to the point of omitting necessary context.
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?
An output schema exists, so the enumerated columns are somewhat redundant and return values needn't be explained here. But with zero schema coverage on inputs and no usage guidance among a crowded analyze_* family, the definition leaves an agent unable to determine parameters or selection criteria.
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 0% and the three parameters (project, bars, source) are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description only obliquely touches the bars parameter via 'max 32 bars' (an output cap, not input semantics) and says nothing about what 'source' selects or what form 'project' takes. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a concrete artifact (a per-bar feature table) and enumerates its columns, so the agent knows what comes back. However, it never states the action performed (no verb) or the input it operates on, and it gives no differentiation from the many sibling analyzers (analyze_grid, analyze_sections, analyze_overview, analyze_timbre). Purpose is inferable but not sharply defined.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to pick analyze_bars over analyze_grid, analyze_sections, or cmp_bars, nor what prerequisites (e.g. a project must exist, bars must be defined) apply. The agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.