Lyngdorf MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get current bass frequency', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'current' means in terms of real-time data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. However, it lacks context about what 'bass frequency' refers to (e.g., audio system, device), and with no annotations or output schema, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to understand the return value or usage context fully.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description aligns with the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get current bass frequency' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('bass frequency'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'getBass' or 'setBassFrequency'. It specifies 'current' which adds some context, but lacks detail on what system or device this applies to.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getBass' or 'setBassFrequency'. The description implies it retrieves a current value, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions compared to other bass-related tools in the sibling list.

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