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 mentions the action ('Send') but doesn't describe what happens if the MIDI port isn't open, whether this is a blocking/non-blocking operation, error conditions, or any side effects. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 perfectly concise with zero wasted words. It starts with the core purpose, then provides parameter details in a clean, structured format. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks important context about prerequisites (needs open port), error handling, and behavioral details that would be helpful for an agent invoking this tool.

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 crucial semantic information beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'channel' represents MIDI channel with range 0-15 and 'program' represents program number with range 0-127, which the schema only indicates as integers without context. 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 Program Change message'), identifies the resource (MIDI message), and distinguishes it from siblings like send_note_on or send_cc by specifying the exact type of MIDI message. It goes beyond the tool name to explain what the tool actually does.

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_cc or send_note_on, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an open MIDI port. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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