Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fcp-midi

fcp-midi

by os-tack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

midi_query

Inspect the current MIDI state to see notes, chords, dynamics, and tempo. Retrieve this state to review the composition before applying changes.

Instructions

Query midi state.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "midi_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies a read operation, but there is no explicit mention of safety, side effects, permissions, or output behavior, making the tool behaviorally opaque.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks essential details and does not earn its brevity, similar to the 'Process' example where minimalism harms usability.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of annotations, an opaque parameter, no output schema, and no usage context, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent has no information about query syntax, return values, or operational constraints, making the tool nearly unusable for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema only defines a required string 'q' with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning for the parameter—it does not explain what 'q' should contain, the query syntax, or expected format. The parameter is completely underdocumented.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Query midi state' provides a verb and a resource, but 'midi state' is vague and does not specify what aspect of MIDI state is being queried. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'midi' or 'midi_session', and the purpose remains ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools