cmp_worstIdentify poorly performing bars in a music stem, overall or by a chosen metric, to spot sections needing review or editing.
The n worst bars of a stem, overall or by one metric (note_f1 pc_f1 attack_f1 hit_low hit_snare hit_hat shape dlevel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| id | No | ||
| stem | No | mix | |
| metric | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only analysis returning a bounded ranking ('n worst'), which is reasonable, but it never explicitly states it is non-mutating, describes paging/limits, or notes anything about cost. Adequate but thin for an un-annotated tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The inline metric enumeration is dense but earns its place since the schema provides no enums for that parameter.
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 return values need not be described. The metric options are covered, but for a 5-parameter tool the required 'project' and optional 'id' remain opaque, and there is no routing against sibling comparison tools.
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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains n ('n worst'), stem ('of a stem'), and metric, even enumerating the valid metric values (note_f1, pc_f1, etc.) that have no enums in the schema. However, the required 'project' and the 'id' parameters are entirely unexplained, leaving a real 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?
States a specific verb+resource combination ('the n worst bars of a stem') with a clear ranking scope and lists the metric dimension. An agent can tell what it returns, though it never differentiates itself from the closely-named sibling cmp_bars or compare.
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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The availability of an 'overall or by one metric' mode hints at a use case, but nothing tells the agent when to reach for cmp_worst versus cmp_bars, cmp_summary, or compare.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.