Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LiveSession MCP

LiveSession MCP

by Uri-Rosen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_warp_markers

Read-only

Retrieve warp markers for an audio clip, returning beat times in the song and sample times in the file.

Instructions

Warp markers of an audio clip (beat_time in the song, sample_time in seconds in the file).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "clip_index": "<clip_index>"
    },
    "name": "get_warp_markers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clip_indexYes
arrangementNo
track_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful meaning about the returned time fields, but it does not disclose ordering, empty results, error behavior, or whether the clip must be an audio clip with warp markers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. The parenthetical return-field explanation is efficient and earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the definition is incomplete for a tool with three undocumented input parameters. The especially important arrangement flag is left unexplained, and no usage context is provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not explain track_index, clip_index, or the optional arrangement flag. It only clarifies the meanings of beat_time and sample_time in the output, not the inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as warp markers belonging to an audio clip, and it clarifies the two returned time fields. It lacks an explicit verb and does not directly differentiate itself from add_warp_marker, move_warp_marker, or remove_warp_marker, but the intent is still clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the related warp-marker mutation tools or other clip-inspection tools. It only implies retrieval by describing the returned data, leaving the agent to infer its proper use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools