MaestroMCP

by vbarreiratt

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have some clear distinctions, such as between audio analysis and MIDI operations, but there is overlap and potential confusion. For example, 'midi_play_and_listen' and 'midi_sequence_commands_enhanced' both involve playing MIDI sequences with audio analysis, making their boundaries unclear. Additionally, the 'enhanced' tools replace basic ones, which could lead to misselection if both were present, but since they are replacements, this is mitigated.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear prefixes like 'audio_' or 'midi_', which aids readability. However, there are minor deviations: 'debug_hello_world' uses a different naming style (no prefix, mixed language in description), and some tool names include emojis or lengthy descriptions that break the pattern slightly. Overall, the naming is mostly predictable and well-structured.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a server focused on audio and MIDI processing with AI integration. Each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose within this domain, such as capture, analysis, configuration, and playback, without feeling excessive or insufficient. This number supports comprehensive functionality while remaining manageable.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key aspects of audio-MIDI interaction, including capture, analysis, playback, and configuration, with enhanced versions for core operations. A minor gap is the lack of explicit tools for stopping or managing ongoing processes (e.g., stop capture or reset), but agents can likely work around this using existing tools. The domain is well-represented with no major dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 vaguely mentions 'continuous monitoring' and 'intelligent learning feedback' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions or resources it requires, if it has side effects (e.g., starting a process), rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves the agent guessing about 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that's front-loaded with the core idea. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it's overly abstract, which reduces its effectiveness despite the efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving audio, MIDI, and AI feedback), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the 'learning feedback' works, or the operational context. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Continuous audio monitoring and intelligent learning feedback for AI improvement' is vague and abstract. It mentions 'audio monitoring' and 'feedback for AI improvement' but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., what it monitors, what feedback it provides, or how it relates to MIDI). It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'audio_analyze_realtime' or 'configure_musical_intelligence'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'audio_analyze_realtime' and 'midi_play_and_listen', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning a personalized message but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. For a debug tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese, with no wasted words. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, and the language might not be optimal for an AI agent if English is expected.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it integrates with the audio/MIDI context of sibling tools, or its debug purpose, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'message' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Ferramenta de debug que retorna mensagem personalizada' states it's a debug tool that returns a personalized message, which gives a basic purpose but is vague about what 'debug' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, which are all audio/MIDI-related, making this tool's role unclear in relation to them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given the sibling tools are focused on audio/MIDI operations, it's unclear if this is a general debug utility or specific to that domain, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'real-time audio capture' and 'MIDI-audio correlation analysis', implying a continuous, interactive process, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this starts a persistent session, requires specific permissions (e.g., microphone access), has rate limits, or what happens on errors. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves system resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Initialize real-time audio capture') and purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a real-time audio capture tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., session management, error handling), usage context, and what the tool returns (e.g., a stream ID or status), which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly in a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters well-documented (e.g., bufferSize, sampleRate with specific values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these settings affect the 'MIDI-audio correlation analysis'. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Initialize real-time audio capture') and the purpose ('for MIDI-audio correlation analysis'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'audio_analyze_realtime' or 'midi_play_and_listen', which might also involve audio processing or MIDI-audio interactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing audio hardware), exclusions (e.g., not for playback), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'audio_analyze_realtime' or 'midi_play_and_listen', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'configure' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose whether changes are persistent, require specific permissions, or affect other tools. It also doesn't describe error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if invalid values are provided. For a configuration tool with 13 parameters, this is a significant behavioral gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It lists key configuration areas without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping related settings (e.g., 'audio system parameters' vs 'musical intelligence parameters') to improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a configuration tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like whether changes take effect immediately or require a restart. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal value by listing 'sample rate, buffer size, analysis capabilities' which are already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or recommended values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool configures 'global musical intelligence settings and superior audio feedback system' with specific examples like sample rate and buffer size. It distinguishes from siblings like audio_analyze_realtime or midi_play_phrase by focusing on configuration rather than real-time analysis or playback. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., audio_midi_feedback might overlap).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether audio capture must be active), nor does it clarify if this is for initial setup versus runtime adjustments. With siblings like audio_start_capture and audio_midi_feedback, the lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details such as whether the list is cached or real-time, how ports are formatted in the output, or if there are any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, port details), behavioral aspects like caching, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with no structured support, more descriptive detail is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'refresh' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('all available MIDI input and output ports'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also list ports with different scopes or filters, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are sibling tools like 'midi_play_and_listen' or 'midi_send_note_enhanced' that might involve port selection, but no explicit comparison or context is given to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool executes a MIDI sequence and analyzes audio, but lacks details on critical behaviors: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or setup might be required, how errors are handled, or the format of the analysis output. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core function in a single sentence. The second part adds context about being the 'core of the self-listening AI system,' which is somewhat relevant but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., analysis results), how the audio analysis integrates with MIDI execution, or any prerequisites like needing an active audio capture. For a tool that combines execution and analysis, more context is needed to guide proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no specific meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'sequence' as MIDI commands, 'audio_analysis' levels). The description doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage examples, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute MIDI sequence while analyzing audio response.' It specifies the verb 'execute' and resource 'MIDI sequence' with the additional function of 'analyzing audio response.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'midi_play_phrase' or 'audio_midi_feedback,' which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions it's the 'core of the self-listening AI system,' which implies a specific context but doesn't offer explicit alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify when to choose this over 'midi_play_phrase' or 'audio_midi_feedback,' leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time audio analysis' but doesn't clarify operational aspects: whether it requires an active audio stream, how results are returned (e.g., streaming vs. batch), latency expectations, or error handling. For a real-time analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Perform real-time audio analysis') and specifies key features. There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (real-time audio analysis with multiple parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and features but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output format. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values (e.g., what analysis results look like), but it doesn't, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters with descriptions, defaults, and an enum for analysis_type. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'pitch detection and spectral features' which map to two boolean parameters but without additional context. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Perform real-time audio analysis with pitch detection and spectral features.' It specifies the action ('analyze'), resource ('audio'), and key capabilities ('pitch detection and spectral features'), distinguishing it from siblings like audio_start_capture (which captures audio) or midi tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., configure_musical_intelligence might be related).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether audio capture must be active), compare it to siblings like audio_start_capture or configure_musical_intelligence, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it mentions 'natural articulation and expression' and conversion to 'legato/staccato', it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a blocking/non-blocking operation, error handling, resource requirements, or what happens if MIDI output isn't available. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two concise clauses that both add value. The emoji adds visual context without being distracting. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with a specific example. Every element earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but leaves significant gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error conditions, or what constitutes successful execution. For a musical playback tool with multiple configuration options, more completeness would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing a concrete example ('C4 E4 G4') and mentioning the conversion to articulation styles, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Play musical phrase') with the resource ('MIDI'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'with natural articulation and expression' and conversion functionality. It goes beyond the name/title by explaining what the tool actually does with musical input.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'natural articulation and expression' and the conversion example, suggesting this is for expressive musical playback rather than basic note triggering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like midi_play_and_listen or midi_send_note_enhanced, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'musical context awareness' and 'real-time analysis of CC effects on audio output,' which hints at behavioral traits beyond simple MIDI sending. However, it lacks specifics on what 'context awareness' entails, how analysis is performed, whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and enhancements, and the second clarifies its role relative to a basic tool. Every sentence earns its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (enhanced MIDI with audio analysis), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It hints at advanced features but doesn't explain what 'musical context awareness' means, how analysis works, or what the output entails. For a tool with such capabilities, more detail is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (channel, controller, outputPort, value). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Send MIDI CC with musical context awareness and real-time analysis of CC effects on audio output.' It specifies the verb ('Send'), resource ('MIDI CC'), and enhanced capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'midi_send_note_enhanced' or other MIDI tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: 'REPLACES basic midi_send_cc with enhanced capabilities,' indicating when to use this tool over a basic version. However, it doesn't specify when to use it versus other enhanced MIDI tools like 'midi_send_note_enhanced' or 'midi_sequence_commands_enhanced,' nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, so it's not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions 'musical intelligence' and 'comprehensive temporal/spectral audio analysis,' these terms are vague and don't explain what actually happens during execution. The description doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it has side effects, what happens if analysis fails, or what the expected output format is. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with just two sentences. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, and the second clarifies its relationship to other tools. There's no wasted verbiage. However, the use of vague terms like 'musical intelligence' and 'comprehensive temporal/spectral audio analysis' could be more specific, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'enhanced capabilities' and 'musical intelligence,' the description is insufficiently complete. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context about what 'enhanced' means, what the analysis produces, and how this differs operationally from the tools it replaces. The agent is left guessing about the actual enhanced functionality beyond basic MIDI sequence execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no specific information about parameters beyond what's already in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters ('commands' array and optional 'outputPort') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or relationships. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute MIDI sequence with musical intelligence and comprehensive temporal/spectral audio analysis during execution.' It specifies the action (execute), resource (MIDI sequence), and key capabilities (musical intelligence, audio analysis). It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it 'REPLACES basic midi_sequence_commands and midi_sequence_with_articulation with enhanced capabilities.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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: it's the enhanced replacement for 'basic midi_sequence_commands and midi_sequence_with_articulation.' This gives the agent guidance that this is the preferred tool for MIDI sequence execution with analysis capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the listed siblings like 'midi_play_phrase' or 'midi_play_and_listen.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions 'automatic musical expression' and 'real-time spectral/temporal/pitch analysis,' which suggest additional processing beyond basic MIDI sending, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or specific behavioral traits like error handling. It adds some context but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with key information in two concise sentences, efficiently conveying purpose and differentiation. However, the use of emojis and marketing language ('Superior Audio Hearing') slightly detracts from clarity, though it remains overall well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a mutation tool with enhanced features but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or specific behavioral constraints. It covers the 'what' and 'why' but not the full operational context needed for robust use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it focuses on tool capabilities rather than parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Send MIDI note') with enhanced capabilities ('automatic musical expression, real-time spectral/temporal/pitch analysis, and superior audio feedback'), and explicitly distinguishes it from a sibling tool ('REPLACES basic midi_send_note'). This provides a verb+resource+scope combination that differentiates it from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating 'REPLACES basic midi_send_note with enhanced capabilities,' indicating this should be used instead of a basic version. It also implies usage context through 'enhanced capabilities' for scenarios needing advanced features.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MaestroMCP-2.0 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vbarreiratt/MaestroMCP-2.0/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vbarreiratt/MaestroMCP-2.0)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MaestroMCP-2.0 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vbarreiratt/MaestroMCP-2.0/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vbarreiratt/MaestroMCP-2.0)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vbarreiratt/MaestroMCP-2.0'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server