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 states the action ('Send') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires an open MIDI port, potential latency, error conditions, or what happens if the channel/port isn't available. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured but is highly efficient.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It fully documents parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., dependencies, errors, typical usage). For a MIDI tool with siblings, more guidance on integration would be helpful, but the parameter coverage is adequate.

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% description coverage. It explicitly defines the parameter ranges and semantics: 'channel: MIDI channel (0-15)' and 'value: Pitch bend value (-8192 to 8191, 0 = center)'. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 Pitch Bend message') and identifies the resource (MIDI pitch bend). It distinguishes from siblings like send_cc, send_note_on, etc., by specifying the exact type of MIDI message being sent.

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. While the description implies it's for sending pitch bend messages, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an open MIDI port), typical use cases, or when other tools like send_cc might be more appropriate.

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