Verifies whether the connected music notation application responds to requests, ensuring it is ready for commands without initiating a new connection.
Check whether the connected application responds. Does not connect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defsAdded value: +{
+ "CommandResult": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / properties / result / $refAdded value: +"#/$defs/CommandResult"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / properties / result / typeRemoved value: -"string"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key non-obvious trait: the tool does not connect, implying it is a read-only liveness check. This is adequate for a simple ping-style operation, though it does not elaborate on what 'responds' means beyond the output schema.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the clarifying negative ('Does not connect') earns its place by preventing misuse.
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 zero-parameter ping tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. An agent knows what the tool does, what it does not do, and can rely on the output schema for return semantics.
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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and the empty schema is self-explanatory; baseline 4 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('the connected application responds'), and explicitly states what it does not do ('Does not connect'), which clearly differentiates it from connection-related siblings like connect_to_musescore and connect_to_dorico.
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 makes clear this is a health-check tool and explicitly excludes connection behavior, so an agent will not confuse it with connect/disconnect siblings. It does not name alternatives directly, but the exclusion is sufficient for this simple zero-parameter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.