Lyngdorf MCP Server

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 that the tool works with streaming sources, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on effects (e.g., whether it skips to start of current track or previous track, error handling if no previous track exists), leaving 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.

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

The description is two short sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action, and the second adds crucial operational scope. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens if at first track) and error conditions, which could be helpful for an agent despite the simplicity.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the tool's applicability to streaming sources, which is semantic context not covered by the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description provides relevant operational context.

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 clearly states the action ('Go to previous track') and specifies the resource ('track'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'next' (next track) and 'previousVoicing' (different resource). It also adds scope clarification ('Works with streaming sources'), which helps differentiate from potential non-streaming alternatives.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Works with streaming sources'), implying it should be used during playback with compatible sources. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, such as clarifying if it applies to all media types or only audio tracks.

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