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 the action ('Set') implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are immediate, reversible, require specific permissions, affect other settings, or have side effects (e.g., audio distortion). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes essential constraint (frequency range). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple setter tool. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks context on behavior, effects, or error conditions. It meets basic requirements but leaves gaps an agent might need for robust 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'frequency' fully documented in the schema (type, description, min/max). The description adds the same range information but no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('treble frequency') with a specific numeric range. It distinguishes from siblings like 'setTreble' (which likely sets gain/level) and 'getTrebleFrequency' (which retrieves the value). However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's for audio equalization or device control, leaving some context implicit.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be powered on), when not to use it (e.g., during certain audio modes), or how it relates to siblings like 'setBassFrequency' or 'setTreble'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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