Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cochlea

cochlea

by richer-richard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

lint_score

Statically validate a RON score against the instrument/preset catalog to catch unknown instruments, empty tracks, and other semantic issues before rendering audio.

Instructions

Statically validate a RON score against the instrument/preset catalog — catches unknown instruments or inserts, empty tracks, and other semantic problems without rendering any audio. Use this before render_score to fail fast on authoring mistakes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "score_path": "<score_path>"
    },
    "name": "lint_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
score_pathYesPath to a RON score file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is static (no audio rendering), catches specific error types, and is non-destructive. Could be improved by mentioning whether it modifies files or output format, but current info is good.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. Could add return value or error handling details, but current info is largely complete for a validation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (score_path described). The description repeats 'Path to a RON score file' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool validates a RON score against a catalog, catching unknown instruments, inserts, and empty tracks. It uses specific verb 'validate' and resource 'RON score', and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'use this before render_score'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this before render_score to fail fast on authoring mistakes', providing clear context for when to use and the benefit over alternative. No additional guidance needed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools