Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_loudnessA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool 'measures,' implying no side effects, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or mention any permissions or limitations such as file format support. More detail would improve transparency.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is two sentences: the first lists the measurements, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  With no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, although it lists the metrics measured. The return format (e.g., object with fields) is missing, which could cause uncertainty despite the low parameter count.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The single parameter 'input' is described in the schema as 'absolute path to an audio file,' and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantics like allowed formats or size constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 states the tool measures specific loudness metrics (LUFS, dBTP, LRA, gating threshold), distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_dolby, master_audio, and mix_vocal_over_beat, which involve exporting, mastering, or mixing.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance to call before or after mastering to verify levels against targets, with concrete examples like hip-hop (-9 to -10 LUFS) and streaming (-14 LUFS). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

• master_audioA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the processing chain, output format, spatial options, and 2-pass loudnorm. It does not mention potential side effects or destructive nature, but these are inherent to mastering.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is detailed but front-loaded with the core mastering chain. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, process, output, and parameter details comprehensively. It explains the spatial options in depth and specifies output format.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  All parameters have schema descriptions, but the tool description adds significant context, especially for the spatial parameter (explains each enum value) and the mastering chain. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

  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 states the tool runs a full professional mastering chain with specific processing steps (corrective EQ, compression, etc.) and outputs a 320kbps MP3. It distinguishes itself from siblings through its focus on the mastering process.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage for mastering audio to hit loudness/true-peak targets, with clear output format. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools context suggests it's for final mastering.

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

• mix_vocal_over_beatA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: sidechain ducking, EQ, reverb, and output format. It does not mention destructive nature or requirements, but covers the core processing well.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action, followed by output format and downstream tool. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the complexity of audio mixing and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, effects, output format, and linkage to master_audio. It could mention the file format expectations for inputs, but overall complete enough.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The description adds value beyond the input schema by explaining the overall processing context (sidechain, EQ, reverb). Schema itself covers 83% of parameters with descriptions; the tool description complements it by showing how parameters relate to the audio effect.

  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 states the tool's purpose: mixing vocal over an instrumental with specific audio processing effects (sidechain ducking, presence EQ, light reverb, beat pulled underneath). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the output is a pre-master for master_audio.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description indicates when to use this tool (before master_audio) and gives a brief context of the processing chain. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling list suggests different stages.

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

• export_dolbyA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the encoding behavior, codec limitations, and default settings. However, it does not explicitly state side effects like file overwriting or permission requirements, though the operation is implied. Slight gap but still strong.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is front-loaded with the main action and important caveat. It is concise but includes necessary details. Could be slightly more structured, but every sentence earns its place.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given no output schema and moderate parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter nuances, and limitations. It could mention what happens if the output file exists, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The schema has 60% description coverage; the description adds meaning by clarifying default stereo at 48kHz (not in schema) and explaining the channels parameter for 5.1 upmix. For codec, it lists the options. It adds value beyond schema but does not detail all parameters (e.g., bitrate not explained).

  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 states that the tool encodes a track to Dolby codecs (eac3 or ac3), specifying the verb 'Encode' and resource 'track to a Dolby codec'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with Dolby Atmos, making its unique purpose clear.

  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 description provides explicit guidance: it warns that for a stereo music single there is no sonic benefit, and says True Atmos requires Dolby's Renderer and separate stems. It also suggests using channels=6 for a basic 5.1 upmix, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use advice.

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