ismail: agent DAW (MCP server)

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Exam Picture Round

exam_picture_round

Build a picture-based listening exam that stacks real and rendered views, lets users flip, answer, and mark differences, then serves it and scores responses.

Instructions

The eye exam page for the person (ledger:M165 step 2, vox's word-picture round): one sound per card, the real picture and ours of the same window stacked so one shows at a time (F flips, Shift peeks, B blinks: the eye reads a difference as movement), M / S / 0 answers about the picture showing, and comments pinned at a time and frequency (a click, or a dragged box). The key is served only after they answer. items: [{word, real: path, other: path, window: [t0, t1] s, other_window (default the same), words: [[t0, t1, text]] in the real file, other_label: what ours is, said after the answer, version, ask: this card's own question, shown above its pictures}]. One card shows at a time, with Back and Next; on a phone a finger on a picture scrolls until Mark is on, and each mark has a Remove button; real-first and real-second are balanced and seeded. labels: the page's words {real, ours, play} (default "This one is the real one", "This one is ours", "Play the real sound"). out: the round's folder; its parent is what the page server serves. host=True starts it on 127.0.0.1:port unless it runs, and registers the round with it, so one server serves rounds from every song; a name another song's round holds gets the song's name in front, and the reply gives the URL and phone link to use. If the round can't be served it says why instead of giving a link. Read the answers with exam_picture_score(out). Reach for it whenever the person should see a difference and mark it ("show me the difference", my voice against the render, two takes side by side, where does it go wrong): a static spectrogram PNG they can look at but not mark is the wrong answer to that (Nate, 10-12).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`out`	Yes
`f_hi`	No
`f_lo`	No
`host`	No
`port`	No
`seed`	No
`intro`	No
`items`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`labels`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is highly transparent, detailing interaction mechanics (F flips, Shift peeks), device specifics (phone scroll), server registration logic (host=True), and output formatting (URL/phone links).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly dense and technical, reading more like an internal design specification than an operational guide. It sacrifices conciseness for sheer volume of detail, making it difficult for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite its length, the definition is exceptionally complete for a complex domain tool. It covers hosting requirements, subsequent workflow (`exam_picture_score`), and the fundamental nature of the interaction.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must provide all semantic context. It explains the internal structure of the `items` parameter (e.g., `real: path`, `other: path`, `window`) and provides high-level logic about data balancing ('real-first and real-second are balanced and seeded').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool's function as running an interactive eye exam picture round, specifically comparing two window states (real vs. ours). It distinguishes this from related processes by referencing `exam_picture_score(out)`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage scenario is vividly described: 'Reach for it whenever the person should see a difference and mark it... where does it go wrong.' It provides specific instructions on when the tool is appropriate and contrasts it with the wrong answer (a static spectrogram PNG).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server