mcp-svstudio

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Retrieval vs. mutation vs. playback vs. batch transaction are separated cleanly. Even close pairs like get_phonemes vs. get_computed_phonemes are clearly differentiated via descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., get_project_info, add_notes, set_voice). Playback controls use single verbs (play, pause, stop) but are intuitive and uniform. The pattern is predictable across all 26 tools.
Tool Count4/5
26 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool high-coherence band, but the server covers a complex domain (Synthesizer V Studio) with multiple resource types (notes, phonemes, attributes, voice, parameters, playback). Each tool addresses a specific need, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of project viewing, note CRUD, phoneme and attribute editing, voice and parameter control, playback management, and an atomic batch operation. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose—editing and producing a SynthV project from an MCP client.
Average 3.6/5 across 24 of 26 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation but does not reveal whether the operation replaces or merges existing attributes, whether per-phoneme changes are persistent, what dry_run does, or whether the operation is destructive. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, the brevity omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral caveats, so it reads as under-specified rather than excellently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex 9-parameter tool with a nested attributes object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain most parameters, the relationship between note attributes and per-phoneme attributes, or the role of trackIndex/groupIndex. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation from this definition alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It adds the per-phoneme shape ({ leftOffset, position, activity, strength }), yet no parameter named 'phonemes' exists in the input schema, and it leaves detune, rapAccent, musicalType, languageOverride, groupIndex, and trackIndex unexplained. The added meaning is partial and not clearly mapped to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Set') and identifies the resource as note attributes and per-phoneme attributes, including the expected per-phoneme item shape. It is specific enough to distinguish the core operation from read-only sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from set_phonemes or update_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_phonemes, update_notes, or get_note_attributes. It does not mention prerequisites, how trackIndex/groupIndex affect the target, or what dry_run is for. The description only states the action without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects and constraints. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid indices), permissions, or whether it returns all settings or partial data. No additional context beyond the operation type is offered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. The main action and object are front-loaded, followed by a list of returned parameters. It is efficient and clear in structure, although the list of technical parameter names feels like a dump. Overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (two optional parameters, no output schema), but the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not explain what groupIndex and trackIndex mean, how they relate to 'NoteGroupReference', or what the return format is (beyond listing field names). Given no output schema, an agent needs more context on the expected result and error handling. The description leaves too much to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the two input parameters (groupIndex, trackIndex) at all. The schema only provides defaults and types, leaving their purpose unstated. The description lists the output parameters instead, but does not clarify how the inputs locate the note group or affect the result. Since the description must compensate for zero coverage, it fails completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('voice settings'), and enumerates the desired voice parameters (paramLoudness, paramTension, etc.). It clearly differentiates from the sibling set_voice as the getter operation. However, the term 'NoteGroupReference' is technical and not explained, making the resource somewhat ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, such as requiring a valid group/track index, nor does it indicate when set_voice would be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied by the name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this operation mutates state, whether it is idempotent, what happens to unspecified parameters, or how the dry_run parameter behaves. The presence of dry_run is completely unaddressed, which is a significant omission for an effectful tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and the affected settings. It avoids redundancy, though it omits important details that could have been added without excessive length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex with a nested voice object, dry_run, and index parameters, but the description only covers the main settings. It does not explain dry_run, groupIndex, trackIndex, defaults, or return values (no output schema). This is incomplete for an agent to call the tool reliably without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter behavior. It lists the setting names (loudness, tension, etc.) but provides no ranges, defaults, units, or relationships. The nested vocalModeParams object and the groupIndex/trackIndex selectors are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without sufficient semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Set voice settings') on a specific resource ('NoteGroupReference') and lists the specific settings it affects. This is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_parameters, relying on the resource name to imply specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_voice or set_parameters. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would select this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. It correctly frames the operation as a read-style getter and lists what will be returned, but it does not describe error behavior, return shape, or how groupIndex/trackIndex influence which note is targeted. This is adequate but has notable gaps.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides specific return-field details. There is no redundant wording or filler that an agent would have to parse wastefully.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter schema coverage, this description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently resolve track/group indexing or to determine the relationship between get_notes and get_note_attributes. It is a clear summary but not a complete invocation guide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only noteIndex has a schema description; groupIndex and trackIndex are undocumented in the schema with 33% coverage. The prose description does not explain what these parameters mean, what defaults imply, or why they are needed, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed note attributes') and enumerates the exact attributes returned, so an agent can understand the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_notes, but the attribute list makes the tool's scope reasonably distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_notes, get_phonemes, or get_computed_phonemes, and no exclusion cases or alternatives are mentioned. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and attribute list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it overrides current playback, whether it pauses existing playback, or whether it requires active playback). This is a mutating operation with no stated impacts, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The description is a single sentence that leads with the action and includes both parameters. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but with no annotations it should perhaps clarify whether playback is automatically started or if it requires an existing playback session. It also does not mention the effect on current playback state. These are minor gaps for such a focused tool, so a 3 reflects that it is usable but not fully informative.
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?
The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Start time in seconds' and 'End time in seconds'), achieving 100% coverage. The description only restates that the loop range is 'in seconds', adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start loop playback') and the resource (loop with time bounds tBegin and tEnd). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic 'play' or 'seek' siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb and range make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus play, seek, or other sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether playback must be active) or scenarios where looping is preferred. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that deletion happens, and omits important behavioral details: the dry_run preview mode, whether locator matching deletes all matching notes, irreversibility, and whether the operation returns anything.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrasing 'note(s)' is slightly awkward, but the sentence is efficient and communicates the core operation quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters, a nested locator object, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is too thin. It leaves ambiguous behavior around dry_run, locator matching semantics, and the result of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% and the description compensates only partially. It explains that noteIndices and locator are the main selection modes, but it does not clarify dry_run, groupIndex or trackIndex defaults, the singular noteIndex option, or how locator onset/pitch values are used for matching.
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 starts with the specific verb 'Delete', names the resource ('note(s)'), and scopes it to a group. It also names the two selection mechanisms, noteIndices and locator, which clearly distinguishes this removal tool from sibling get/update/add operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied: call this when notes should be removed from a group. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it, such as when notes should instead be updated, or mention prerequisites like locating notes with find_notes before deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' appropriately signals a non-mutating operation, and the description conveys the return content type. However, it adds no detail on what happens when logs are absent, whether the server must be reachable, how output is formatted, or whether the read is bounded by the 'lines' parameter — leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, dense sentence with no filler words — every word carries meaning. The description front-loads the core semantic (read logs) and qualifies it efficiently with 'latest,' 'execution and error,' and the source. It could add a quick usage hint, but for its size it's efficient and well-ordered.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is read, what kind of data is expected, and how recent that data is. Minor gaps exist — no mention of return format, behavior when the target server is unreachable, or whether logs can be cleared — but these are edge cases for such a simple, read-only tool. The description does enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The input schema already documents the 'lines' parameter with a sensible description and default (50), giving 100% schema coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. The tool description adds little beyond that — the term 'latest' weakly reinforces the tail-like behavior of the 'lines' parameter, but no format details or constraints are added. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameter adequately and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('latest execution and error logs') and source scope ('from Synthesizer V Studio Lua script'). It conveys both the content type and recency of the returned data. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_server_status, but the resource is specific enough to avoid real confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description is silent on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_server_status or get_project_info. It doesn't state that a running Synthesizer V Studio instance is required, how results differ from status/health checks, or when an agent would prefer this over get_notes/get_parameters when debugging. The when-to-use is only weakly implied by the name and content, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval via 'Retrieve' and explains the data comes from the synthesis engine, but it does not mention whether any synthesis state is required, whether the call mutates anything, or what errors may occur.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the verb, target, attribute list, and underlying API reference into a compact and scannable statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool this is reasonably complete: it identifies what is retrieved and the source. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape, parameter semantics, and when-to-use guidance to be inferred, so it is only minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented groupIndex and trackIndex parameters. It does not fully do so: the API name suggests a group-based operation, but the description does not explain the meaning of either parameter or how defaults behave beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('SynthV internal synthesis engine-computed phonemes and attributes'), even listing the attributes. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_phonemes, but the 'computed' qualifier and the underlying API hint make its focus clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool should be used for engine-computed phonemes and attributes rather than static or user-set values, especially given the sibling get_phonemes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Set automation points' indicates a mutation but omits side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or the meaning of the 'dry_run' parameter. The modes are listed but not explained.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that covers the core action and available modes without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and multiple modes. It lacks information about return values, success/failure behavior, or the effect of each mode, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 22% (2 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning: it lists modes but does not clarify the purpose of 'points', 'minOnset', 'maxOnset', or 'simplifyThreshold'. The existing description for 'points' contains a typo ('blick' instead of 'block'), further reducing clarity.
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's function: 'Set automation points on parameter curve' with explicit modes (add, replace_all, remove_range). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_parameters or set_phonemes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for modifying automation curves but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No comparison with get_parameters or other setter tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action but not side effects (e.g., does playing start? does it pause?), reversibility, or error behavior for out-of-range positions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, clear sentence conveys the core function without waste. The structure is minimal and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and leaves out important context: what happens if the position is out of bounds, whether seeking is instant or requires media loaded, whether it triggers playback or pauses, and what the return value or error cases are. For a simple tool, these gaps are notable given the lack of annotations and output schema.
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?
The schema documents the parameter with a clear description ('Playhead position in seconds'). The tool description repeats this, adding no extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers it fully, but no additional context is provided.
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 states the action ('seek') and the target resource ('playhead') with a specific parameter ('time in seconds'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_playhead (retrieves position) and play/pause (state control), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. However, the purpose is self-evident (moving the playhead to a specific time), and the distinction from siblings is implicit. There is no mention of prerequisites like being in a playing state or valid position ranges.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'returns empty string if none set'. However, it does not mention error behavior, whether it has side effects (it is a get, but that is not stated), or the shape of the return value for multiple notes. The disclosure is minimal.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and includes the key behavioral note about returning an empty string. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with limited schema descriptions, the description is not fully complete. It mentions returning an empty string if none set, which is useful, but it does not explain the return format for multiple notes, how trackIndex and groupIndex combine, or any prerequisites. While adequate for a simple getter, it leaves some ambiguity.
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 coverage is only 33% (only noteIndex has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining that noteIndex is optional and selects a specific note, while groupIndex is used for groups. However, trackIndex is not mentioned at all, and the interaction between the indexes is not clarified. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (get), resource (user-specified phonemes), and scope (a group or a specific noteIndex). It distinguishes from get_computed_phonemes by saying 'user-specified', and from set_phonemes by being a getter. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of the highest level of differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it via the phrase 'user-specified', which contrasts with computed phonemes, but it does not explicitly state conditions or alternatives. There is no statement like 'use get_computed_phonemes for reformatted phonemes'. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states the action is a direct assignment (a write operation) and gives a specific purpose, but omits details on idempotency, validation, side effects, or return values. This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.
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 concise sentences with the primary action and examples front-loaded, followed by the use case. No wasted words, well structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description does not provide sufficient context to understand parameter relationships, required fields, or how to specify notes. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (the description implicitly refers to 'assignments' but doesn't explain its structure). It fails to mention dry_run, groupIndex, trackIndex, or the nested locator/noteIndex fields. The example phonemes are given but the mapping to parameters is not explained, leaving the agent without enough guidance to construct a valid request.
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 action: 'Directly assign formal SynthV space-separated phoneme strings to notes' with specific examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_phonemes or set_note_attributes by focusing on phoneme assignment and the use case of MusicXML lyric joining.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The statement 'Solves MusicXML lyric joining issues' provides a clear use case. It implies when to use this tool (for lyric-related phoneme adjustments) without explicit comparison to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose mutability, the locator matching semantics, and supports_dry_run, which is helpful. Yet it does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens if a locator matches multiple notes, or what occurs when no note is found.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action and identification modes, then adds the dry_run detail in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a note-update tool operating on existing notes, the description provides enough to initiate a call: what resource it affects, how to identify notes, and the dry_run option. However, without output schema or annotation context, it leaves gaps about update semantics, error behavior, and how this operation differs from batch_edit or add_notes when used in a broader workflow.
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 high (75%), with descriptions already provided for notes, noteIndex, groupIndex, and trackIndex. The description adds useful context by clarifying that noteIndex is 0-based and that locator means onset/pitch match, but the schema already conveys much of this and the description does not substantively enrich parameter meanings beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: updating existing notes, and specifies the two supported identification methods (0-based noteIndex and onset/pitch locator). This distinguishes it from add_notes and delete_notes, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling batch_edit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to modify already-existing notes rather than adding or removing them. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives like add_notes or batch_edit, so an agent has to infer the routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it moves the playhead, clears loop settings, or affects recording state), leaving the agent to assume defaults.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and context. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
For a simple playback command, the description is adequate. It does not specify start position or interaction with loop/seek, but those are typically implied by the action and the presence of specialized sibling tools. Given no output schema and no parameters, the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist.
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?
States a specific verb-resource pair ('start playback') and clearly identifies the application context ('Synthesizer V Studio'). It is easily distinguished from sibling commands like pause, stop, and seek, which have different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whether it resumes from current position or restarts). The description implies starting playback but does not elaborate on scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return fields (pitch, onset, duration, etc.), which is helpful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though the name 'get' implies it), whether there are ordering or pagination characteristics, or any permission requirements. The safety profile is only implied, not explicit.
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?
The description is a compact two-sentence structure: the first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second enumerates the return fields. There is no redundant fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded. It is exceptional for its brevity and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, providing the return fields is a positive step. However, the description does not clarify potential limitations (e.g., whether it returns all notes at once, ordering, or performance implications) and does not differentiate from find_notes. It is adequate for basic invocation but lacks deeper context that a richer description could offer.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both groupIndex and trackIndex, including their 0-based nature and defaults. The description merely echoes '0-based indices' without adding any additional meaning, such as valid ranges or behavioral consequences of different parameter values. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('notes'), and a precise scope ('specific track and group reference'), and it enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from write operations and from find_notes, which implies search rather than direct retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for retrieving all notes from a given track/group, but it does not explicitly specify when to use it over siblings like find_notes or get_phonemes. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the atomic transaction behavior and snapshot rollback, which are key behavioral traits. It also implies the operations are batched and possibly reversible via rollback. However, it does not mention failure handling details or whether success is partial, but the atomicity covers that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose (batch operations) and the key differentiator (atomic transaction with rollback). It is concise and well-structured, though it could benefit from a brief mention of dry_run or the list of operation types, but not necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (multiple operation types, atomicity), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks details on what happens on failure (though rollback implies), how to structure operations, and whether dry_run is available. However, the schema provides the operation list and parameters, so the description covers the core context. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, it could be more complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'operations' implicitly through the list of operation types, and mentions 'dry_run' only in the schema, not in the description. The description does not explain the meaning of 'dry_run' or how operations are structured, relying on the schema. Since schema is structured, but description adds no parameter-specific detail, baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool executes multiple operations (note/phoneme/voice/parameter) in a single atomic transaction with snapshot rollback. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing atomicity and rollback, which is not present in sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly list the exact operations, though the schema enumerates them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use for batch operations requiring atomicity, which differentiates it from individual sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single operations) or mention alternatives, but the atomicity feature implies a clear use case. The lack of explicit exclusion lowers the score slightly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns position and status and enumerates the possible status values, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it address error behavior or server prerequisites. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and expected result. It includes the essential detail of the status values without any filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
For a simple, parameterless query tool with no output schema, the description covers the return values and status options. It lacks explicit mention of the numeric format of position (e.g., floating-point seconds), but this is likely inferred. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters. Since there are no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is high, and the description is entirely consistent with the schema.
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 verb 'get', the resource 'playhead', and the specific information returned (position in seconds and status). It lists the valid status values, making it distinct from sibling control tools like play, pause, stop, seek, and loop, as well as other query tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly a read-only query, there is no explicit mention of when it should be preferred over get_server_status or other getters, nor any exclusion conditions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate, but it does not state potential side effects, permission requirements, or error handling (e.g., if no project is open). Given the low risk of a get operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
A single, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a concise list of returned fields. No wasted words; every element contributes information.
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?
For a parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description lists the key metadata fields expected in the response. It does not specify data types or error conditions, but for this simple case it is largely sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of mention about behavior when no project is loaded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none, and the baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.
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 explicitly states 'Get current project metadata' and enumerates the returned fields (duration, tracks, note groups, tempo marks, measure marks), making the resource and scope unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling get_* tools that target server status, logs, or individual entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 get_server_status or list_tracks. There is no mention of selection criteria, exclusions, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool checks connection status, script state, and project info, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, return format, or whether it might be indirectly altering state (unlikely for a status check). The description would benefit from clarifying that it is non-destructive and what output to expect.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and specifies all relevant subjects. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose quickly.
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 there is no output schema and no parameters, the description provides sufficient context by listing what the tool checks. It does not explain return values, but since no output schema is provided, this is not required. The description covers all necessary aspects for the tool's simple functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. According to the rubric, a tool with zero parameters defaults to a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate since none exist.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('Check connection status') and specifies the resources involved ('Synthesizer V Studio 2, script, and current project info'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_info and get_server_logs by focusing on the overall server status, making it clear what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (e.g., to verify server connectivity and health), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide conditions for selection. Since there are sibling tools like get_project_info and get_server_logs, a more explicit usage guideline would be beneficial, but the context is still understandable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses the return fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential volume, pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It is adequate but lacks rich behavioral context beyond the obvious read-only nature.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all note groups') and then specifies the output fields. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition; every word 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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must convey the return values. It specifies the exact fields (group name, UUID, note count), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the return structure (e.g., an array of objects), but this is reasonably inferred from the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information missing. The description adds no parameter semantics, but with 0 parameters this is not needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.
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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('note groups in the project library'), and scope ('all'). It also lists the returned fields (group name, UUID, note count), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like list_tracks or get_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by specifying the resource (note groups), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or any exclusions. The presence of sibling tools like list_tracks and get_notes means an agent could infer usage, but the description itself carries no direct usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description necessarily handles the behavioral burden. It discloses the resource being modified, the requirement for onset with unit, duration, pitch, lyrics, and optional phonemes. It does not explain dry_run behavior or side effects in detail, but 'Add' communicates a mutating action.
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?
The description is one concise sentence that leads with the main purpose, then lists critical required properties and a useful unit conversion. No words are wasted.
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?
For a note-creation tool, the description covers the essential note structure and unit semantics. It could mention why dry_run exists or how groupIndex/trackIndex address targets, but the schema provides those parameter details, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the blicks unit conversion and reinforcing what each note must contain. It doesn't discuss dry_run or index params, but those are already covered by the schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool's specific verb and resource: 'Add one or more notes to a track/group.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_notes, update_notes, and delete_notes, and the scope is immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys the intended context: use when adding notes to a track/group, and gives required conditions for each note. It does not explicitly exclude cases for update/delete, but the action is self-evident enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Search' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description does not suggest any side effects. However, it does not disclose behavior when no filters are provided (e.g., returns all notes) or any other edge cases. This is a moderate gap for a search tool, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core function, and the second adds a relevant use case. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick parsing.
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?
For a filtered search tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a relevant use case. The schema documents all parameters, so the description need not repeat them. However, it remains silent on default behavior (e.g., empty query returning all notes) and return format, which are minor gaps. A 4 reflects that the essentials are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by labeling 'lyrics substring/regex' (the schema only says 'substring pattern', missing the regex capability) and grouping min/max parameters into conceptual 'ranges'. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema, earning a 4.
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 states a specific verb 'Search' and a specific resource 'notes', and clearly enumerates the search dimensions (onset range, pitch range, lyrics substring/regex, phonemes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notes, which likely retrieves notes without such filtering. The use case 'aligning with MuseScore score data' further clarifies its intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Ideal for aligning with MuseScore score data' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_notes) or exclusions (when not to use it), so it stops short of a full 5. Still, the context is specific enough to guide an agent's selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read-only listing operation and specifies the included data, but does not mention behavior for empty/no-loaded projects, ordering, or potential performance implications for large projects.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every phrase adds useful information and there is no filler.
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 the zero-parameter complexity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what would be returned. It could more fully describe edge-case behavior, but for a simple list operation, the information provided is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The self-contained description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 a specific action ('List all tracks in the project') and explicitly enumerates the returned fields: track name, group references count, display color, and mixer settings. This distinguishes it from sibling list/set tools like list_groups or get_project_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the intended use clear: retrieve all tracks in the current project. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, there is no sibling that appears to duplicate this track-listing capability, so the use case is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the name by clearly describing two effects: playback stops and the playhead returns to start. It does not cover edge cases like already-stopped state, but the core behavior is unambiguous.
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?
One sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the secondary effect. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
For a parameterless transport-control command, the description is functionally complete: it tells the agent what it does and what state change it causes. Return values are not described, but no output schema exists and the command's semantics are simple enough that nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and no deduction is warranted.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Stop playback', and adds the distinguishing behavior 'return playhead to start position'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pause, which would pause without resetting the playhead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The playhead-reset detail implicitly indicates when this tool should be used instead of pause, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool comparisons are provided. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description's use of 'Read' indicates a non-destructive operation, but it does not specify the return format or potential errors for invalid parameters. Still, the read-only nature is transparent.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence covering the core functionality and listing parameter options, with no superfluous words.
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?
The description is sufficient for basic usage, but since there is no output schema, it does not explicitly state what the read operation returns (e.g., a list of points). This is a minor gap, but the tool's purpose is clear and likely inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the list of valid paramName values, which is helpful beyond the schema's generic description. The other parameters (minOnset, maxOnset) have schema descriptions, and the description does not contradict or add much, but the paramName enumeration compensates for the 60% schema coverage.
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 reads automation curve points for a given parameter, and it enumerates the supported parameter names (pitchDelta, vibratoEnv, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_parameters that write data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a read operation but does not explicitly compare it with set_parameters or mention conditions like read-only context. However, the intent is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does so well: it discloses the main action and a key behavioral trait (preserving the playhead). It doesn't cover edge cases like pausing when already paused, but for a simple zero-parameter control, it is sufficiently transparent.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and immediately states the critical differentiator. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter playback control with an existing sibling set, the description provides the essential operation and nuance. No return value or schema details are needed, so nothing is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there is nothing to document; the baseline 4 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Pause') and resource ('playback in Synthesizer V Studio'), and the qualifier 'without resetting playhead' distinguishes it from stop/seek operations. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does and how it differs from siblings like stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the correct use case: pause when preserving the playhead position is desired, implying stop would reset it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the contextual clarity is high and no exclusion is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![SV-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shotarokawade/SV-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shotarokawade/SV-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![SV-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shotarokawade/SV-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shotarokawade/SV-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shotarokawade/SV-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server