Align MIDI note positions in an item's active take to a specified quarter-note grid for precise timing. Pass grid_qn like 0.25, 0.5, or 1.0.
Quantize note positions in the active MIDI take of the item at (track_index, item_index) to grid_qn quarter notes. Pass 0.25 for 16th-note grid, 0.5 for 8ths, 1.0 for quarters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grid_qn | Yes | ||
| item_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the operation is a mutation of note positions in the active MIDI take and scopes it to a specific item, which is useful. It omits reversibility/undo behavior, how notes not on the grid are handled, and error cases for non-MIDI items.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with the example grid values serving as immediately usable guidance. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the key grid parameter but leaves behavioral gaps (reversibility, non-MIDI/error behavior, index ordering). Adequate but not fully complete for the complexity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives concrete semantics for grid_qn (quarter-note value with example mappings), which substantially exceeds the bare schema, and ties track_index/item_index to the target item. The index semantics (e.g., ordering vs list_tracks/select_items_on_track) remain unclarified, keeping it out of the top band.
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?
States a specific verb (Quantize) and resource (note positions in the active MIDI take of the item), and precisely identifies the target via (track_index, item_index). No sibling tool performs quantization, so it is unambiguous against the list.
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?
The description explains how to choose a grid value (0.25/0.5/1.0 maps to musical note divisions), which is practical guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use versus when-not context, no prerequisite that the item must contain a MIDI take, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.