midi-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a write operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if the MIDI port isn't open, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter explanations are clear and efficient, though the structure could be slightly improved by explicitly labeling the parameter section. Every sentence adds value.

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 (MIDI operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output information. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for safe and effective 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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, valid ranges (0-15 for channel, 0-127 for note and velocity), and provides a concrete example (note 60 = middle C). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 On message') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_note_off, send_cc, etc. It explicitly identifies the resource (MIDI Note On message) and verb (Send).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_note_off or send_cc. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an open MIDI port) or typical use cases (e.g., triggering musical notes).

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