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. While 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires device connection, what happens if the device is off, whether changes persist, or what error conditions might occur. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents 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.

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

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the critical range constraint. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the frequency, whether there's confirmation, what errors might occur, or how this interacts with other audio settings. Given the complexity of audio control systems and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'frequency' fully documented in the schema (type, range, description). The description adds minimal value beyond restating the range already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('Set') and resource ('bass frequency') with a specific range (20-800 Hz), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'setBass' or 'getBassFrequency' - it only states what it does, not how it differs from related tools.

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 like 'setBass' or 'getBassFrequency'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationship to other audio control tools in the sibling list. The user must infer usage from 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.