Skip to main content
Glama

cw_check_quantize

Judges whether a quantize edit produced the expected note positions by comparing before and after tick arrays or MIDI files, then checks if notes landed on the grid.

Instructions

Judge a quantize from actual data instead of guessing. Give it the note ticks before the edit and the ticks the exported file now holds, and it computes what the settings should have produced and says whether they match and whether the notes landed on the grid. Pass before and after as tick arrays, or pass file paths to read them. The judgement is pure arithmetic, so it works without SONAR running.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gridNoThe grid the quantize targeted16 分音符
afterNoNote start ticks in the exported file
swingNoSwing that was set. 50 is straight; any other value means the verdict's on-grid test is straight-grid only and says so
beforeNoNote start ticks before the edit
strengthNoThe strength that was set. Must be the value actually written to the dialog, not the default — a stale 50 explains a half-moved result.
afterFileNoRead `after` from this .mid instead
beforeFileNoRead `before` from this .mid instead

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the judgement is pure arithmetic, requires no SONAR, and reports match plus on-grid status. It implies a non-mutating read/verify operation, though it doesn't explicitly state that no project state is changed.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then input modes, then the no-SONAR context. Every sentence adds information 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?

With no output schema, the description explains what the verdict covers (match and on-grid status) and the SONAR independence. It stops short of describing the exact return shape, but it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying that `before`/`after` can be given as tick arrays or as file paths (`beforeFile`/`afterFile`). The swing and strength caveats live in the schema descriptions and are not repeated, which is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('judge'), resource ('quantize'), and the exact mechanism (compare before/after ticks against computed expectations). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like cw_quantize_plan or cw_quantize_dialog, which plan or open dialogs rather than verify results.

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 how to supply data (tick arrays or file paths) and notes that it works without SONAR running, giving useful context for when it can be used. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this one, but the input instructions are clear.

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