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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires an open MIDI port, potential side effects (e.g., audio output), error handling, or rate limits. For a tool that likely interacts with hardware/software, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured list of parameters. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow rather than listed separately, preventing a perfect score.

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 complexity of MIDI operations and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address prerequisites (e.g., needing an open port), potential errors, or what happens after sending the message. For a tool with no structured safety or output info, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable use.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters by explaining their roles (MIDI channel, CC number, CC value) and valid ranges (0-15 for channel, 0-127 for control and value). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, but it doesn't go beyond basic definitions to explain implications or examples, keeping it at an adequate level.

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 tool's purpose: 'Send a MIDI Control Change message.' It specifies the verb ('Send') and resource ('MIDI Control Change message'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like send_note_on or send_program_change, which are also MIDI message-sending tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose send_cc over other MIDI message tools like send_note_on or send_pitchwheel, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to decide appropriately.

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