Preview repeated clip placements along a track using an explicit native length in beats, so you can verify arrangement spacing before applying changes.
Preview consecutive placements using explicit native clip length in beats
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| track | Yes | ||
| markers | No | ||
| start_beat | No | ||
| checkpoint_paths | No | ||
| native_length_beats | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that spacing is driven by an explicit native length in beats, which is useful context, but it never states what the preview returns or how it relates to agent_apply.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell what markers or checkpoint_paths do, what a preview result looks like, or how this pairs with the apply step.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only illuminates native_length_beats; track, slot, count, start_beat, markers, and checkpoint_paths are left completely undocumented.
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 verb 'Preview' and object 'consecutive placements' give a rough idea, but 'placements' is jargon for what is presumably repeated clip placement. It does not distinguish itself from siblings agent_preview, agent_loop_preview, agent_arrange_preview, or agent_midi_preview, all of which are also previews.
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 statement of when to use this versus the other agent_* preview tools or when to follow up with agent_apply. The only implied usage is 'use this when you want a repeat preview,' which the agent must infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.