Retrieve all automation envelope points for a specified track. Returns each point's time, value, and shape to simplify inspecting or editing automation data.
Get all points from an envelope.
Args: envelope_name: Envelope name.
Returns: Object with list of points (time, value, shape).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| envelope_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns an object containing a list of points with time, value, and shape, but does not disclose behavior for missing envelopes, ordering, or empty envelopes.
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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. It follows a clear 'summary, args, returns' structure. The incomplete Args section is a content issue rather than a conciseness problem.
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?
The definition is not complete enough for correct invocation: track_index is required but undocumented, and there is no distinction from FX envelope tools. With no output schema and sparse annotations, an agent needs more context than this provides.
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%, and the description only mentions envelope_name, omitting the required track_index parameter entirely. The phrase 'Envelope name' adds little beyond the parameter name, and dropping a required parameter is misleading for an agent trying to invoke the tool.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get all points from an envelope.' It specifies the return format, so an agent understands the core action. However, it does not distinguish track envelopes from FX envelopes, even though get_fx_envelope_points exists as a sibling.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fx_envelope_points or get_envelope_point_count. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.