Check real-time MIDI transport status: available ports, selected port, and the one-time SONAR Preferences > MIDI > Inputs step required to receive MIDI.
Report the real-time MIDI transport: available ports, which one will be used, and the one-time step needed in SONAR (Preferences > MIDI > Inputs) to receive it.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and handles it reasonably: 'Report' establishes a read-only, observational operation, and it discloses that a manual SONAR setup step (Preferences > MIDI > Inputs) is required outside the tool. It does not say what happens when no ports exist or whether it reflects cached versus live state, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with three distinct, useful clauses: what is reported, the port that will be used, and the manual SONAR step. No filler, though the setup-step clause is long enough that it could have been a separate sentence for scanning.
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 are no parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does list the returned information. It is nearly complete for a simple status call, with only minor gaps around output shape and failure modes.
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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The schema being empty is consistent with the description, which correctly implies no inputs are needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('real-time MIDI transport'), then enumerates the three things returned: available ports, which port will be used, and the SONAR setup step. This is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like cw_midi_devices or cw_midi_config, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Usage is implied: it's a diagnostic/reporting call useful before sending MIDI, and the mention of a one-time SONAR preference step signals troubleshooting. However, it never states when to call this versus cw_midi_devices, cw_midi_config, or cw_enable_midi_port, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.