midi_sourcesLists available MIDI input devices by name, including keyboards, pads, and loopMIDI ports, to help you select or detect them for live playback.
The MIDI inputs this computer has now (keyboards, pads, loopMIDI ports), by name. A running live engine also notices one plugged in and says so; live_midi plays one through the set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description still discloses two important behavioral traits: it returns the current set of available inputs and a running live engine can notice devices plugged in and report that. It does not spell out side-effect safety, but for a listing tool this is reasonably transparent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and scope, then a compact integration note. No filler or repeated schema content.
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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned in concept and notes the live_midi relationship. The remaining gap is failing to clarify its boundary with the similar midi_ports sibling.
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?
There are zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied; the baseline for no params is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to describe.
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 identifies the resource precisely as currently connected MIDI inputs (keyboards, pads, loopMIDI ports) returned by name, which is more than a restatement of the name. It also points to live_midi as the player, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling midi_ports, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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?
It implies the workflow of discovering inputs here and using live_midi to play one, giving useful context. However, it never states an explicit when-to-use rule, prerequisites, or how to choose it over midi_ports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.