Send MIDI notes, chords, sequences, CC, pitch bend, or MCU commands into Logic Pro's Virtual In, record-armed track, or control surface.
Send MIDI into Logic's Virtual In (lands on the record-armed track) or drive the MCU surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bpm | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| strip | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| number | No | ||
| channel | No | ||
| command | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| velocity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that MIDI lands on the record-armed track and that a second MCU mode exists, but it says nothing about real-time behavior, permissions, driver/port setup, or the differing side effects of the 13 actions, which is a large gap for a live-control tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-sized for a 13-action, 13-parameter tool; brevity here reads as omission rather than discipline.
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 highly complex tool with no annotations, no output schema, an opaque 13-value action enum, and 0% schema description coverage, one sentence is grossly insufficient. The action-to-parameter contract is entirely absent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 13 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Nothing tells the agent that action='mcu_fader' consumes strip/value, or that note/chord/sequence consume note, notes, steps, velocity and duration.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: send MIDI into Logic's Virtual In or drive the MCU surface. An agent can grasp the tool's two modes, but the description never differentiates it from siblings like logic_osc (another surface-control candidate), so it falls short of a 5.
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 parenthetical '(lands on the record-armed track)' hints at a precondition, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no explanation of which of the 13 actions fits which scenario, and no routing advice versus the other logic_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.