Strudel MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v4.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among analysis tools (analyze, analyze_pattern_local, diagnostics) and pattern modification tools (transform, effect, shape). Descriptions help differentiate, but agents might still select incorrectly without careful reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but a few are single verbs (analyze, compose, init). The style is mostly consistent with underscores, but occasional lack of underscores (e.g., ai_assist) is acceptable. Overall predictable.
Tool Count3/5
27 tools is on the high side for a server focused on pattern generation. While they cover many aspects, some tools like query_pattern_events are niche. The count feels slightly excessive but still manageable.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: creation, editing, analysis, playback, persistence, session management, and audio export. A few gaps like tempo automation exist, but the overall set is well-scoped for the domain.
Average 4/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 5 of 5 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 159 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the cost of missing important context. It is not verbose, but it does not add value beyond the bare minimum.
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 output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description fails to provide enough context to understand what 'pattern code' is, what the tool returns, or how it relates to other pattern tools.
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 a clear description for the session_id parameter. The description adds no further value beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool gets the current pattern code, identifying the verb and resource. However, 'pattern code' is somewhat vague without further context, and the description does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'query_pattern_events' or 'analyze_pattern'.
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 is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess.
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, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It only states 'Set BPM', without disclosing side effects, permissions needed, or whether the change is destructive. The agent cannot infer if this is a safe operation or if it affects other settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but lacks any structure or additional context. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices helpfulness. A balanced description would include a sentence on usage context.
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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description should still explain the effect on the session, return value, and relationship to other tempo-related siblings. It fails to do so, 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 input schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 'Set BPM' clearly states the action and resource (tempo/BPM). It is specific enough to understand the tool's primary function, though it lacks differentiation from sibling tools that might also modify tempo.
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. The optional session_id parameter hints at context, but the description does not explain when to include it or exclude it, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-initialization of the default browser, but does not indicate whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing patterns), requires session prerequisites, or what the side effects are for the 'write' and 'play' actions.
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?
Two sentences (21 words) conveying the core purpose and a key behavioral note. Extremely concise and front-loaded with the main action.
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?
Despite the tool having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, prerequisites (beyond browser), or how it interacts with the session system. For a complex generative tool, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no explanation of 'style' options or 'session_id' behavior). The brief mention of browser initialization is only tangentially related.
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 action ('Generate, write, and play a complete pattern in one step') and implies a combined workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual steps. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or define what 'pattern' means.
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 given on when to use this tool versus other pattern-related tools. The description only mentions auto-initialization of the browser, which is a technical detail rather than usage context. There are no when-not or alternative tool references.
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 provided, so description must disclose behavior fully. It only states static analysis without browser playback, but omits whether it is read-only, output format, or any side effects. Insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Single sentence efficiently communicates the core purpose and key differentiator (no browser playback). No wasted words.
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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basics. However, it does not explain what the analysis returns or provide usage context (e.g., costs, limitations), leaving gaps for a full understanding.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the analysis type but no additional meaning for the 'pattern' parameter beyond the schema. Adequate but not improved.
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?
Description specifies static analysis of events/cycle, complexity, and optional BPM, and explicitly excludes browser playback. This makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly state it is for patterns (implied by parameter name).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'analyze' or 'validate_pattern_local'. The mention of 'without browser playback' hints at a scenario but does not name sibling tools or provide 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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or state changes. 'Initialize' implies setup but lacks specifics.
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 is front-loaded. It avoids verbosity, but could benefit from a bit more context without sacrificing conciseness.
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 parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, the absence of output schema and annotations means the agent gains little insight into what initialization entails, which is a gap for a potentially impactful action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information but is not required to; baseline of 4 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 verb 'Initialize' and the resource 'Strudel', indicating it sets up the Strudel environment. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'session' or 'browser_window' which might have overlapping functionality.
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical 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. It only mentions it returns transpiled code or a syntax error, but does not disclose side effects, safety (read-only or destructive), or any behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. The agent is left uninformed about whether this modifies state or has prerequisites.
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 sentence that efficiently states the action, engine, and result. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.
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?
For a single-param read tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks detail on return value format and precise behavior. It is minimally adequate but could benefit from explaining what 'transpiled code' looks like or when errors occur.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a description for the single 'pattern' parameter: 'Pattern code to transpile'. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, constraints, examples). Baseline 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 verb 'transpile', the resource 'pattern source via StrudelEngine', and the outcome ('returns transpiled code or syntax error'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_pattern_local' or 'analyze_pattern_local', though it could be more specific about what transpilation entails.
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. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with siblings is given.
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 exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, or whether the pattern is modified. The session_id parameter description seems unrelated to MIDI export, adding confusion.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Despite having no output schema and 5 optional parameters, the description omits output format details, success/error handling, and typical usage scenarios. For a music domain tool, this is insufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, achieving baseline 3.
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 it exports the current pattern to a MIDI file and specifies that it parses note(), n(), and chord() functions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like import_midi.
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 (e.g., import_midi or other export formats). An AI agent lacks context for selection.
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 provided, so description should cover behavioral aspects. It only states validation and engine context, omitting side effects, permissions, errors, or output format.
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?
Single sentence efficiently conveys core purpose and key differentiator (no browser required) with no waste.
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?
For a simple 1-param tool, the description is adequate but lacks any usage context or details about return values, which could help the 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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning to the 'pattern' parameter beyond the schema's description.
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 explicitly states the tool validates pattern syntax using an in-process StrudelEngine, clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'validate_pattern_runtime' which likely requires a browser.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like validate_pattern_runtime. The agent is left to infer context from the description alone.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the max cycle range (16 cycles) and the action (enumerate events), but omits behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, side effects, or error handling. Some transparency is present but incomplete.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low complexity (3 params), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It states the action, range constraint, and max cycles. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., pattern existence) or return format.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already defines parameters. The description adds no extra semantic context beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'enumerate' and clearly states the resource ('events') and scope ('between two cycle indices, max 16 cycles'). It differentiates from siblings like 'get_pattern' by focusing on emitted events rather than the pattern itself.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios where it should not be used. The usage context is implied only through the tool's name and description.
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?
Discloses that it monitors the Strudel console for errors, but does not mention side effects of executing the pattern or any required permissions.
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?
Efficient single sentence with no waste.
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?
Lacks details about return format, error behavior, and potential for pattern execution side effects; adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100%, description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond schema definitions.
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 validates a pattern with runtime error checking, distinguishing it from siblings like validate_pattern_local (static) and analyze (general).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like validate_pattern_local; usage implied but not stated.
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?
While no annotations are provided, the description discloses basic behavior (appending/stripping effect calls). However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or state changes beyond the pattern modification.
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?
Two sentences plus an example. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and easy to parse.
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 output schema, the description implies the pattern is modified but doesn't specify return value or error conditions (e.g., removing a non-existing effect). Completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing an example, listing effect examples (lpf, room, delay), and clarifying that params is only for action=add. This goes beyond the schema's static 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?
Description clearly states the tool adds or removes a Strudel effect on the current session pattern. It specifies verbs 'add' and 'remove' and the resource 'pattern effect', and distinguishes from sibling tools 'shape' and 'transform'.
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?
Explicitly explains when to use each action (add appends, remove strips) and provides an example. Also differentiates from 'shape' for higher-level effect bundles and 'transform' for raw transforms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses that 'show brings window to foreground' and 'screenshot captures editor view to disk.' It also explains session_id behavior regarding compose auto-init. Minor omission: no mention of error states or file overwrite 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?
Concise, four sentences: purpose, two actions with brief explanation, example, and cross-reference to siblings. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and three parameters with one required, description covers main use cases. Includes example and alternatives. Could mention what happens on failure (e.g., screenshot to existing file) but overall sufficient.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond schema with an example for filename, but no additional semantic explanation for action or session_id that isn't already in schema.
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?
Description clearly states it interacts with the Strudel browser window and lists two specific actions (show, screenshot). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing diagnostics and edit_pattern.
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?
Provides explicit alternatives: 'For diagnostics use diagnostics; for the editor itself use edit_pattern.' Also includes an example and clarifies when to use session_id.
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?
Description discloses mutation ('append it to the current session pattern') but lacks details on reversibility, error handling, or session management beyond session_id. No annotations provided to offset; would benefit from noting side effects more fully.
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?
Description is well-structured with role-specific paragraphs, an example, and a final line for sibling differentiation. Every sentence is informative, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all roles, defaults, and examples. Lacks return value description (no output schema), which would aid agent understanding of what to expect. Otherwise thorough for a generative tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds conditional per-role parameter usage (e.g., role=drums takes style, complexity; role=melody takes root/scale), which significantly aids parameter selection beyond schema's flat listing.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Generate' and distinct resource 'single instrumental layer' appended to session pattern. It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming alternatives (compose, generate_rhythm, music_theory).
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For full compositions use compose; for rhythmic patterns use generate_rhythm; for music-theory queries use music_theory.' Also provides an example call.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two modes and that the pattern is appended (state mutation). However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., overwriting, error handling) or prerequisites like session existence. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then type explanations with example, then sibling alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters and mutation behavior, the description covers types, parameters, and alternatives. However, it lacks details on return value or error conditions. With no output schema, a note on what the tool returns would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by linking parameters to types (e.g., 'hits evenly distributed across steps') and stating defaults (sound default 'bd'). This enriches understanding beyond the schema.
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 generates a rhythmic pattern and appends it to the current session. It specifies two types (euclidean, polyrhythm) and distinguishes itself from generate_part and compose, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: use generate_part for complete patterns and compose for whole compositions. The example demonstrates correct invocation, and the parameter descriptions clarify when each type applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: undo reverts, redo replays, restore pushes current onto undo stack, compare diffs with defaults. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., idempotency) but covers the main behavioral traits.
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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and actions, followed by an example and sibling distinction. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers all actions, parameters, defaults, and an example. It omits error scenarios but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds context beyond schema: it explains default limit (10), default id2 (current pattern), and the undo-stack effect of restore. This additional behavioral information enhances parameter meaning.
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 states the tool navigates or inspects the pattern edit history, listing all five actions with clear verb-resource pairs. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tool pattern_store (in-memory vs on-disk), fully distinguishing its purpose.
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 explains when to use each action and provides an example. It explicitly directs users to pattern_store for on-disk patterns, though it does not cover all sibling tools or edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the behavioral intent of each action. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting on save, error on load of missing name) or details about the list output format. The session_id parameter is mentioned but its behavior when omitted is not fully explained.
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 the core purpose and is relatively concise. It uses a semicolon-separated list for actions, which is efficient. However, it could be slightly shorter by omitting the example, though the example aids clarity.
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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 actions, no output schema), the description covers the primary operations and sibling differentiation. However, it omits important details such as error conditions (e.g., what happens if name is missing for load), behavior of session_id when not provided, and any constraints (e.g., maximum pattern size or naming rules). The lack of output schema makes return value information absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the roles of action in a compact summary and by providing a usage example. It also explains the session_id parameter's cross-session sharing aspect, which goes beyond the schema description.
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 'Persist patterns to disk and read them back' and enumerates three distinct actions (save, load, list). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'session' by stating the scope is on-disk patterns, not runtime sessions.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'For session lifecycle (create/destroy/list active sessions) use the session tool — pattern_store deals with on-disk patterns, not runtime sessions.' Also includes an example call pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return structures for each include option, explains combining behavior, and mentions pre-consolidation behavior for 'all'. Lacks explicit read-only statement but overall transparent.
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?
Description is comprehensive but slightly lengthy; each sentence adds value and structure is clear. Could be more concise but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description explains return values for each category. Covers main use cases and alternatives. Missing error handling but sufficient for most scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds meaning with explanations of enum values, default behavior, and examples of combining categories.
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?
Description clearly states 'Audio analysis on the currently-playing pattern' with specific analysis categories (tempo, key, spectrum, rhythm, all). Distinguishes from siblings analyze_pattern_local and validate_pattern_runtime.
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?
Explicitly provides when to use each include value, demonstrates with examples, and names alternatives: 'For static pattern analysis (no browser) use analyze_pattern_local; for runtime validation use validate_pattern_runtime.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses singleton conflict (server-wide), requirement that audio must be playing, and return values (base64 for sample). Could be more explicit about error handling (e.g., stop without start), but overall sufficient.
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?
Well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, then actions, example, alternatives, and caveat. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be tightened slightly but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations, but description covers actions, required audio, singleton conflict, and example. Lacks error scenarios and full return format details, but given complexity of a 5-param tool, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds significant context: explains each action's behavior against the action enum, and provides important caveat about concurrent conflict for session_id. This exceeds baseline.
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?
Clearly states it records audio output from live Strudel session. Distinguishes actions (start, stop, sample) and explicitly mentions alternatives (export_midi, diagnostics), making it distinguishable from siblings.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each action (start, stop, sample) and context that audio must be playing. Also gives alternatives for MIDI export and diagnostics, excluding inappropriate uses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details what each level returns (e.g., 'server-side timing metrics + top bottlenecks' for perf), mentions the <15ms SLA for status, and explains that the default 'full' preserves pre-consolidation behavior. It also clarifies which parameters apply to which levels (session_id ignored for perf/memory). This is thorough.
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 moderately long but well-structured: it starts with the general purpose, then lists each level with its output, provides a default, and ends with an example and sibling references. Every sentence adds value, though some could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values for each level. It covers parameters (2, none required), clarifies dependency of session_id on levels, and mentions SLA. For a tool with moderate complexity (multiple modes, optional session ID), it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds value by specifying that 'level' defaults to 'full', indicating that 'session_id' applies only to certain levels, and providing an example usage. This goes beyond the schema.
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 states it inspects server and browser state, lists five specific diagnostic levels (status, full, perf, memory, errors), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool browser_window and resource strudel://docs/tools. This makes its purpose and scope very clear.
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?
It explains when to use each level (e.g., 'level=status returns a quick snapshot'), provides an SLA, notes the default behavior, and gives an example. It also tells when not to use this tool (for screenshots, use browser_window; for tool listings, use strudel://docs/tools). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid using diagnostics entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: file source constraints, drum track handling (s() lanes for non-collision), pitched track output (note().s('piano') and chord merging), and reference to future phases. This compensates for the lack of annotations.
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 efficient, front-loading the main purpose, then detailing source options, behavior, and an example. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers input formats, behavior for drum and pitched tracks, and future phases. It does not fully specify the output structure of the pattern, but the example implies a pattern object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema covers 100% of parameters and descriptions, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: explains the default for steps_per_cycle, the drum_map override behavior, and that unmapped drums result in rests surfaced in the summary.
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 converts a .mid file into a playable Strudel pattern, with specific mention of Phase 1 literal transcription. It distinguishes from the sibling tool export_midi by explicitly noting the reverse direction.
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 explains when to use source='base64' vs source='path', mentions path traversal blocking, and provides an example. It also indicates the reverse direction via analyze tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately describes each action's effect (play starts editor pattern, pause stops without resetting clock, stop ends playback). Lacks detail on state resets or session requirements.
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?
Compact and well-structured: purpose first, then actions, example, and cross-references. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple schema (2 params, enum) and no output schema, the description fully covers usage, behavior, and alternatives. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning to action enum (play/pause/stop behaviors) and clarifies session_id optionality, exceeding baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states 'Control transport on the current session' and lists specific actions (play, pause, stop), distinguishing itself from siblings like edit_pattern and set_tempo.
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?
Provides explicit actions and example, and directs when to use alternative tools (edit_pattern, set_tempo). Could further clarify prerequisites like session readiness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: sessions share a browser but have isolated contexts, destroy releases resources, switch changes routing for subsequent calls. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid session_id).
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 efficiently structured, starting with a clear one-line summary, then breaking down each action in bullet-like format, and ending with a contrast to a sibling tool. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers all actions, explains the shared-browser-but-isolated-context behavior, and distinguishes from a sibling tool. It provides an example and sufficient detail for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context for each action value but does not significantly extend the schema's semantic detail beyond the provided enum and parameter 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 identifies the tool as managing isolated browser sessions, explicitly differentiates from the sibling pattern_store by contrasting runtime sessions vs. on-disk patterns, and uses specific verb-resource pairs for each action (e.g., 'starts a new named session').
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?
Provides explicit guidance for each action (create, destroy, list, switch) and directly advises when to use the sibling pattern_store instead, establishing clear usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully discloses mutation behavior, defaults (mode=write, validate=true, auto_play=false), and mode semantics. No contradictions.
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?
Description is moderately long but efficiently structured: first sentence general, then mode-by-mode, example, sibling differentiation. Every sentence serves a purpose; no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, 0 required, 5 modes, and no output schema, the description covers all modes, all parameters in context, and includes an example. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by associating each parameter with the relevant mode (e.g., pattern for write, code for append/insert), beyond schema's standalone 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?
Describes specific verb 'mutate' for 'current session pattern' and lists all five modes. Distinguishes from siblings get_pattern (reading) and pattern_store (on-disk catalog) explicitly.
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?
Provides explicit guidance per mode with parameters and an example. Tells when not to use: use get_pattern for reading, pattern_store for catalog.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that chord_progression writes into the current session (side effect) and explains the output format for scale queries. However, it does not detail the chord progression output format or any error conditions.
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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value, including an example and sibling tool references.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and a moderate complexity domain, the description is fairly complete. It covers both query types, inputs, side effects, and alternatives. Missing the exact output format for chord_progression prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but description adds value: it explains that root also serves as key for chord_progression, gives an example usage, and illustrates the scale output format. This goes beyond the schema's parameter 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 tool is for music-theory queries, detailing two query types (scale and chord_progression) with specific outputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools (generate_part, generate_rhythm) by explicitly stating their use cases.
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 alternatives: 'For pattern generation (drums/bass/melody) use generate_part; for rhythmic patterns use generate_rhythm.' It also includes a concrete example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 discloses that all dimensions auto-play by default and mentions optional intensity with a default of 0.5. However, it does not explicitly state whether the shape operation is non-destructive or what the return value is, leaving some 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the main action and then details each dimension. All sentences are informative, but it could be slightly more concise by grouping the dimension descriptions more tightly. Still, it is well-structured and avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well, including usage context and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks details on the return value or confirmation of success/failure, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the tool's effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of each dimension, providing the example with target_mood and intensity, clarifying default values (intensity 0.5, auto_play true), and listing valid options for each dimension. This greatly aids parameter selection.
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: 'Shape the current pattern along one of three high-level dimensions.' It lists the three dimensions (mood, energy, refine) with specific examples and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing users to 'transform' for raw transforms and 'effect' for explicit effects.
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 each dimension (mood, energy, refine) with their respective parameters. It also tells users when not to use this tool, directing them to 'transform' for raw operations and 'effect' for effects. An example usage is included, making the expected call pattern clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses auth requirements, rate limiting, task-specific behaviors (e.g., jam merges and auto-plays, suggest returns text), and the optional audio analysis for feedback. However, it does not detail error handling or side effects of invalid inputs.
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 concise (7 sentences), front-loaded with the overall purpose, and structured clearly by task. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (8 parameters, 3 tasks), the description covers all tasks, authentication, sibling alternatives, and provides a usage example. It adequately compensates for the lack of output schema by describing return behaviors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how parameters relate to each task (e.g., includeAudio for feedback, layer for jam) and provides context beyond the schema.
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 is a Gemini-backed pattern assistant with three distinct tasks (feedback, suggest, jam). It differentiates from siblings by recommending generate_part for non-AI generation and compose for full compositions.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: when to use each task, prerequisites (GEMINI_API_KEY), and alternatives (generate_part, compose). An example invocation is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes behavioral traits for each op, including side effects like appending '.rev' for reverse and mutating the session pattern. No annotations provided, so description carries burden well, though it could mention whether changes are reversible.
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 paragraph but is well-organized and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently covers all ops without excessive length. Could be slightly more structured with bullets, but still concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, 8 ops) and absence of output schema, the description covers all necessary details, including an example and differentiation from siblings. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining each op's effect and parameter usage. Includes an example for transpose, which goes beyond schema bare 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 it applies a single transform operation to the current session pattern. It lists all eight ops and their effects, and differentiates from sibling tools like effect, shape, and set_tempo.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For effects (add/remove) use effect; for mood/energy/refine use shape; for tempo use set_tempo.' Provides clear context and exclusions.
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:

[![live-coding-music-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/williamzujkowski/live-coding-music-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/williamzujkowski/live-coding-music-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![live-coding-music-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/williamzujkowski/live-coding-music-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/williamzujkowski/live-coding-music-mcp)

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/williamzujkowski/live-coding-music-mcp'

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