Lyngdorf MCP Server

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. 'Switch' implies a mutation action, but it doesn't specify effects (e.g., changes audio output, may require active device), permissions, or error conditions. It lacks details on what 'next' means (e.g., wraps around a list) or response behavior, leaving significant gaps 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Switch to next voicing preset') that directly states the tool's action without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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.

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

Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'switch'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'voicing preset' is, how 'next' is determined, potential side effects, or return values. For a tool in an audio control context with many siblings, 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.

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.

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 'Switch to next voicing preset' clearly states the action (switch) and resource (next voicing preset), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'previousVoicing' or 'setVoicing', which would require mentioning directionality or comparison to alternatives for a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a device must be powered on), context (e.g., cycling through presets), or exclusions (e.g., not for setting specific voicings). This leaves the agent without usage direction beyond the basic action.

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