R3

Read a project's song

r3_song_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a project's Song: its tracks (each plays Patterns, DrumGrids, Beats or Audio files in clips placed in bars), automation lanes (keyframes on a track's or the master's gain, pan or effect settings), sections, master chain and length, with every source as its entityRef, plus a summary and the songVersion r3_song_update takes as baseVersion. Read it before a change ("move the drop", "a slower filter sweep"). The schema: SONGS.md; the how-to: HOWTO_SONG.md.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "r3_song_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`song`	No	The Song's entityRef; leave it out when the project has one song.
`projectId`	Yes	The project, from r3_project_list.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bpm`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`song`	Yes
`songs`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
`enabled`	Yes
`seconds`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`entityRef`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`componentId`	Yes
`songVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral value: the returned songVersion is the baseVersion required by r3_song_update, which tells the agent this read is a prerequisite for mutation and must not be stale.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and content enumeration, followed by the practical read-before-write guidance and doc pointers. The long parenthetical explaining what tracks/automation lanes are is informative but slightly costly; overall it earns its length.

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 read tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the important call-time context: what entity hierarchy it returns, the baseVersion linkage to update, and where to find schema/how-to docs. Everything needed to call correctly is covered, with the return format delegated to the output schema.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (including the 'leave it out when the project has one song' default). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (a project's Song), then enumerates exactly what is returned: tracks, automation lanes, sections, master chain, length, entityRefs, summary and songVersion. This makes it unmistakable against siblings like r3_song_update or r3_project_load.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Read it before a change ("move the drop", "a slower filter sweep")' and implicitly routes the agent to r3_song_update by explaining the songVersion it takes as baseVersion. It lacks an explicit when-not/exclusion statement, keeping it short of a 5.

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

All R3 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?