Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_midi_eventsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions 'comprehensive filtering options' which hints at functionality, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., event list format, pagination), error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether it's read-only (though 'Get' implies safe read operation). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters and complex filtering.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key filter types to enhance clarity without adding bulk.

  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 tool's complexity (6 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of events with properties), error handling for invalid filters, or how parameters interact (e.g., fileId vs. filePath). For a data retrieval tool with rich filtering, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'comprehensive filtering options,' which aligns with parameters like eventTypeFilter and timeRange, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples that aren't already in the parameter descriptions.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Get MIDI events from a file with comprehensive filtering options.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('MIDI events'), and scope ('from a file'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_midi_summary or get_track_details, which likely provide different types of MIDI data.

  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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_midi_summary (which might provide aggregated data) or get_track_details (which might focus on track-level information), leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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

• get_midi_summaryC
  2.9/5.0
  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 tool retrieves 'comprehensive summary information,' but fails to specify what that includes (e.g., metadata, track count, duration), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like file size limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part contributing to clarity, making it highly concise and 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive summary information' entails, such as the structure or content of the return value, nor does it address behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('fileId' and 'filePath') and their purposes. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

  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 ('Get comprehensive summary information') and resource ('about a MIDI file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tracks_list' or 'get_track_details', which might also provide summary-like information about MIDI files.

  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. The description lacks context about how this differs from sibling tools such as 'get_midi_events' or 'get_tracks_list', leaving the agent without explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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

• get_track_detailsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify whether it requires specific permissions, what happens with invalid inputs, or the format/structure of the returned information. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it does communicate, though it could benefit from additional context.

  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?

  For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what 'detailed information' includes beyond events, doesn't explain the relationship between fileId and filePath parameters, and provides no guidance on error conditions or expected output format. The agent would need to guess about many behavioral aspects.

  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 description mentions 'including events' which hints at the event-related parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., fileId vs filePath) or provide usage examples that would add value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific track including events'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('track'), and scope ('detailed information including events'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_midi_events or get_tracks_list, which likely provide overlapping functionality.

  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. There are sibling tools like get_midi_events and get_tracks_list that might serve similar purposes, but the description doesn't mention them or explain when this specific tool is appropriate. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

• load_midi_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  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 tool loads and parses a file, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the file is invalid or missing), performance considerations, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with file systems.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a file-loading tool. It doesn't explain what the parsed output entails (e.g., structured data or events), error scenarios, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'filePath' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as file format specifics or path requirements, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 ('Load and parse') and resource ('a MIDI SMF file from the specified path'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_midi_events' or 'get_midi_summary' which might also involve loading MIDI files, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

  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 the sibling tools listed. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid file path, or specify use cases like initial file loading before accessing events or summaries.

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

• get_tracks_listB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., list format, track properties returned), whether it requires a pre-loaded file (hinted by 'fileId' parameter but not explicitly stated), or any limitations (e.g., file size constraints, error conditions). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get list of tracks in a MIDI file') followed by the key capability ('with optional filtering by channel or program'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering capability but doesn't address important contextual elements like what constitutes a 'track' in MIDI terms, what information is returned about each track, or how this tool relates to the sibling 'load_midi_file' tool (which likely must be called first). The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values, which it doesn't.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering by channel or program' which corresponds to 'channelFilter' and 'programFilter' parameters. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between 'fileId' and 'filePath' parameters or provide additional context about parameter usage beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

  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 ('Get list of tracks') and resource ('in a MIDI file'), with specific scope ('with optional filtering by channel or program'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_midi_events' or 'get_midi_summary' by focusing on tracks rather than events or overall summary. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_track_details' which might provide more detailed information about individual tracks.

  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 usage context through 'optional filtering by channel or program', suggesting this tool is for retrieving track lists with specific filters. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_track_details' (for detailed track info) or 'get_midi_summary' (for overall file metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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