Lyngdorf MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Set voicing preset', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it changes audio output), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 phrase ('Set voicing preset') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 'set'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a voicing preset is, how changes affect the system, or what to expect upon success/failure. More context is needed for safe and 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'voicing' documented as 'Voicing preset number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as valid ranges or what the numbers represent. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Set voicing preset' clearly indicates the action (set) and resource (voicing preset), but it's vague about what a 'voicing preset' entails—it doesn't specify if it's for audio, device, or system settings. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getVoicing' (read vs. write) but lacks specificity compared to tools like 'setBalance' or 'setTreble'.

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), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'listVoicings' or 'nextVoicing', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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