Set a project's time signature by providing the number of beats per measure and the beat unit, ensuring correct musical timing.
Set the project time signature.
Args: numerator: Beats per measure (e.g., 4 for 4/4). denominator: Beat unit (e.g., 4 for quarter note).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| numerator | Yes | ||
| denominator | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the parameters. It does not say whether the change is project-wide, how it affects existing MIDI items or audio, whether it is reversible/undoable, or whether it requires a stopped transport.
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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by two tight parameter lines. The examples are short and earn their place; nothing is padded.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only two fully documented parameters, the definition covers the mechanical call adequately but leaves the agent without any picture of side effects or return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.
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, and it does: it explains numerator as 'Beats per measure' and denominator as 'Beat unit', each with a concrete 4/4 example. That adds real meaning beyond the bare integer types, though it omits valid ranges or edge 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the project time signature.' This is unambiguous and implicitly distinguished from the read counterpart get_time_signature in the sibling list, though the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_tempo or get_time_signature, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., transport state or scope of effect). Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Set'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.