midi-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Open') and a prerequisite (using 'list_midi_ports'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions needed, or what happens if the port is already open. It adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence for essential guidance, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with no annotations or output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on return values, error cases, or side effects. It provides basic usage but could be more comprehensive for safe operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter 'name' refers to a MIDI output port name, which is not evident from the schema alone. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, keeping it slightly above baseline.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Open') and resource ('a MIDI output port by name'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'close_midi_port' (closing) and 'list_midi_ports' (listing). It directly addresses what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('Open a MIDI output port by name') and directs to an alternative ('Use list_midi_ports to see available ports'), offering clear context and distinguishing it from other siblings like 'send_note_on' or 'get_midi_status' without misleading guidance.

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