Sends batches of raw MIDI messages in one round trip to Cakewalk SONAR, optionally rewriting each status byte to a chosen channel—use it to lay down phrases with fewer calls.
Send a batch of raw MIDI messages in one round trip. Each message is [status, data1, data2]. Use this to lay down a phrase cheaply; pass channel to rewrite the low nibble of each status byte.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | ||
| messages | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the one-round-trip batching behavior, the message shape, and the channel nibble rewrite, but it omits what happens on invalid messages, whether/which errors are returned, and whether sending raw MIDI has side effects requiring recovery (e.g. cw_midi_panic).
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, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by format and channel semantics. There is no filler or repeated information.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and while the description covers the core invocation semantics, it leaves return behavior, validation/error behavior, and the 2048-message bound undocumented. For a raw MIDI mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, that is an important remaining gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: messages are explained as [status, data1, data2] and channel is explained as rewriting the low nibble of each status byte. It does not clarify that messages may be 2 bytes as well as 3, which slightly undersells the schema's minItems=2 allowance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Send a batch of raw MIDI messages') and adds a scope detail ('in one round trip'). It implicitly differentiates itself from structured siblings like cw_midi_note and cw_midi_chord by emphasizing 'raw' messages, but does not name those alternatives explicitly.
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 lay down a phrase cheaply' gives a clear usage context for bulk/raw MIDI, implying it is the efficient alternative to per-note helpers. However, it never names cw_midi_note, cw_midi_chord, or cw_midi_cc as alternatives, nor does it 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.