Read SONAR's MIDI port configuration from TTSSEQ.INI to verify enabled inputs, outputs, and echo settings, confirming the receive side that a MIDI send cannot.
Read SONAR's MIDI port configuration (TTSSEQ.INI): which ports SONAR has enabled as inputs, outputs and echo. Use this to verify the receive side, which a send cannot confirm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data source (the TTSSEQ.INI file) and that it covers enabled inputs/outputs/echo, which implies a safe read. It does not say whether the result reflects persisted INI state versus live SONAR state (a real staleness risk), whether SONAR must be running, or anything about the response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste: the first states what is read and from where, the second states when to use it. The identifying detail (TTSSEQ.INI) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it names the source, enumerates the categories of ports returned, and gives the verification rationale. Only the persisted-vs-live distinction and the rough return shape are left unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed and points to the config file as the implicit target.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Read') plus a specific resource ('SONAR's MIDI port configuration (TTSSEQ.INI)') and scope ('inputs, outputs and echo'). It implicitly separates itself from the send-side tools ('which a send cannot confirm') but does not name the near-siblings cw_midi_devices, cw_midi_status, or cw_enable_midi_port, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use this to verify the receive side, which a send cannot confirm' gives a concrete situation that selects this tool over the MIDI send tools. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., cw_midi_devices vs cw_midi_status), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.