Time a DJ set by calculating segment lengths from cue points A/B and transition overlaps, including warnings and total runtime.
Time an ordered set: cue A/B segment lengths, transition overlaps, warnings and total runtime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| set | No | Object with a 'tracks' array and an optional 'transitions' array. | |
| input_path | No | Read the set JSON from this file instead. | |
| default_overlap_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at output content (warnings, total runtime) but says nothing about whether the tool mutates state, what permissions it needs, or what constraints apply. For a computation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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 filler; the verb and resource lead. It could not be much shorter, though the jargon 'cue A/B' is unexplained.
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?
With a nested 'set' object, three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do much more. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by naming the return artifacts, but omits the input-route choice, the overlap parameter, and any usage context.
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 67%, covering 'set' and 'input_path' but leaving 'default_overlap_ms' undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all - it never explains the overlap semantics, the relationship between inline set and input_path, or what 'transitions' affect, despite transition overlaps being the tool's stated concern.
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 ('Time') and resource ('an ordered set') and enumerates the produced artifacts: cue A/B segment lengths, transition overlaps, warnings, and total runtime. It distinguishes itself adequately, though the sole sibling suggest_next is unrelated so no real differentiation pressure exists.
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 indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor when to supply 'set' inline versus 'input_path'. The existence of two mutually-exclusive input routes is left entirely to the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.