midi-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention whether it requires an open MIDI port, what happens if parameters are out of range, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or any error conditions. For a tool that sends hardware messages, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, and each parameter description earns its place by adding value. It could be slightly more concise by combining the parameter explanations into a single paragraph.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a MIDI tool that interacts with hardware, more information about prerequisites and error handling would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'channel' is MIDI channel (0-15), 'note' is note number (0-127), and 'velocity' is release velocity (0-127, usually 0). This adds crucial meaning about valid ranges and typical values that the schema alone doesn't provide.

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 ('Send a MIDI Note Off message'), identifies the resource (MIDI Note Off), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'send_note_on' by specifying the message type. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 like 'send_note_on' or other MIDI message tools. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites (e.g., needing an open MIDI port), or how it relates to sibling tools in the MIDI workflow.

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