Lists every take for a media item on a specified track, returning each take's index, name, and active status along with the total take count.
List all takes of a media item.
Returns: Object with 'takes' array (each entry: index, name, is_active) and 'ret' = take count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the concrete return shape (takes array of index/name/is_active plus a take count), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation, but does not cover edge cases such as what happens if the item has no takes.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact structured return block; every line carries information with no filler. Slightly more verbose formatting than strictly needed but well organized.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description's return-value explanation is valuable and covers that gap. However, with two required, undocumented parameters, the definition is incomplete on the input side of a tool an agent must invoke with correct indices.
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% for two required integer parameters (track_index, item_index), and the description says nothing about them. It does not clarify that indices are zero-based track/item positions, nor how they relate to the item returned by sibling tools, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource: 'List all takes of a media item', which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_active_take (singular active take) and set_active_take. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 statement of when to use this versus get_active_take, get_takes vs explode_takes/crop_to_active_take, or any prerequisite (e.g. needing a valid item). The agent gets no routing guidance among a crowded cluster of take-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.