List all available scenes in the current bank to view and select scenes for music production workflows.
[policy:read] List available scenes in the current bank
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "scene_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states it lists scenes, but without annotations, it should disclose more behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions (beyond the policy hint), whether it returns full scene objects or just names, and if there are any side effects. The '[policy:read]' tag helps but is not a full disclosure.
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?
The description is very concise, fitting in one sentence with no verbose language. The '[policy:read]' prefix is somewhat extraneous but does not detract much. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description lacks details about the return format, whether it lists all scenes or only a subset, and how agents should interpret the results. More context is needed for effective usage.
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 has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. A score of 3 is baseline for such cases.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('available scenes in the current bank'). The inclusion of '[policy:read]' further clarifies the nature of the operation. It is specific and distinguishes from potential similar tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'track_selected_get_status' or 'clip_get_info' are listed, but there is no differentiation or context for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.