Index a folder of audio files into the music library, reading only changed files by fingerprinting size, modification time, and content hashes.
Index/refresh a folder of audio files into the library (fingerprint = size + mtime + head/tail 64KB hash; only changed files are re-read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Folder to index (files are referenced in place, never moved). | |
| recursive | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the incremental fingerprinting mechanism (size + mtime + head/tail 64KB hash) and that only changed files are re-read. This is meaningful behavioral detail beyond a generic scan, though it does not mention permissions or return behavior.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a necessary technical detail. It is efficient without wasting words, though the parenthetical fingerprint clause makes it slightly dense.
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?
The description covers the core scanning behavior and provides useful internals, but it does not explain return values (no output schema), error cases, or the recursive parameter. For a tool with one undocumented parameter and no annotations, it leaves some context gaps.
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 coverage is only 50% because the recursive parameter lacks a schema description. The tool description does not compensate: it never explains the effect of recursive, which is a clear gap. The path parameter is partially covered by the schema, but the description adds no additional parameter meaning.
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 identifies the action ('Index/refresh') and resource ('a folder of audio files into the library'), and the fingerprint detail helps distinguish it from import-type siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops 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 phrase 'Index/refresh' implies a use case (keeping the library in sync with a folder), but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like import_history or import_rekordbox_xml, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.