Skip to main content
Glama

Get cues, loops and beatgrid

get_track_performance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a track's cues, loops, beatgrid, and waveform from an Engine DJ library, with decode and verification status for each field.

Instructions

Decode PerformanceData for one track: hot cues, the main cue, saved loops, the beatgrid and a coarse waveform profile. Each field carries its own decode status and its own layout marker. layout: "verified" (every field) means the binary layout was confirmed against a real Engine DJ library -- cue positions land inside the track, the beatgrid's implied tempo matches the analysed BPM, the waveform's declared point spacing multiplies back out to the track's sample count, and a saved loop spans a whole number of beats at that same analysed BPM -- so status: "ok" is a claim about the values, not just about the parse. layout: "unverified" would mean only that the bytes parsed; no field returns it today. Positions are sample offsets; sample_rate at the top level converts them to seconds, and cue/loop items carry the seconds already. Only hot-cue and loop slots that hold something are listed -- slots is how many the track has in total, so items: [] with slots: 8 means an analysed track with no cues set. Items are capped at 64; total gives the full count and truncated says whether the cap was hit. With more than one library connected, pass library (a uuid or path from list_libraries, either the ~/... form or the absolute one) to choose which one; the default is the supported library with the most tracks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
libraryNoWhich library to use: either the uuid or the path reported by list_libraries (the reported ~/... form is accepted, as is the absolute path). Omit it to use the supported library holding the most tracks. A READ may always omit it. A WRITE may omit it only when a single supported library is connected: with two or more, a write refuses with ambiguous_library listing them, since the choice decides which disk changes; ask the user which, then pass it here. A library copied onto another drive keeps its uuid, so a uuid can name two connected libraries: a write naming such a uuid refuses with ambiguous_library as well. Pass the path to write to one of them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.17.2

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the layout verification semantics ('verified' vs 'unverified'), the meaning of status:'ok', the cap at 64 items with total/truncated fields, the slots vs items distinction, and the library ambiguity behavior for writes. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but every sentence carries substantive information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through layout verification, position semantics, item capping, and library selection. It could arguably be split into clearer sections, but the density is justified given the complexity of the tool's output semantics. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return semantics (per-field decode status, layout markers, slots vs items, cap behavior), the coordinate system (sample offsets, seconds), and the library disambiguation rules. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its results. The only minor gap is that `id` isn't explicitly defined as a track ID, but the tool name and title make that unambiguous.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%: the `library` parameter has a detailed schema description, but `id` has only type/constraints. The tool description compensates by explaining that positions are sample offsets, that sample_rate converts them to seconds, and that cue/loop items carry seconds already. It doesn't explain the `id` parameter's meaning (which track), but the tool name and title make that obvious. The description adds meaningful context about how the id relates to the decoded data.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Decode PerformanceData for one track') and enumerates exactly what is decoded: hot cues, main cue, saved loops, beatgrid, and a coarse waveform profile. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tracks or get_playlist_tracks by focusing on PerformanceData rather than track metadata or playlist membership.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains the library selection behavior, when to pass `library` (with more than one library connected), and what the default is. It also explains the cap behavior and the slots/items distinction, which helps an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate for a given query. The sibling list confirms this is the only tool for PerformanceData, and the description's detail about library disambiguation is actionable.

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