Set the project's time signature by providing beats per measure and beat unit (e.g., 4/4) to match your musical meter.
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?
Annotations only include destructiveHint=false and no readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'set' (mutation) but does not explain side effects, whether it affects the current play position, if it is undoable, or how invalid values are handled. Minimal behavioral transparency beyond the operation itself.
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 front-loaded with the action and follows with a structured parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics but leaves gaps. It does not mention whether values are validated, how changes interact with the project timeline, or whether the tool affects all sections. Missing usage and behavioral context lower completeness.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: numerator as beats per measure with a 4/4 example, denominator as beat unit with a quarter-note example. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare integer type, though it omits constraints like valid denominator values.
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 clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_time_signature and other project-level tools. It is concise and unambiguous.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_tempo or get_time_signature. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The purpose implies usage, but no explicit direction is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.