Retrieve the timeline arrangement, including length, playback state, loop region, markers, and track clips with beat positions, so you can inspect or edit the song structure.
The song on the timeline: its length, whether the arrangement or the session is playing, the loop region, the markers (sections) and every track's clips with start and length in beats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the payload — playing state, loop region, markers, and clips with start/length in beats — which matters especially because no output schema exists. It stops short of noting cost or size on very large sessions.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler, and the resource ('the song on the timeline') is front-loaded. It loses a point because the verbless noun-phrase opening reads more like a field list than a declaration of what the call does.
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 parameterless getter with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description carries enough return-value detail to set expectations. It is not exhaustive — units, size and ordering of the returned clips and markers are unstated — but nothing needed to invoke it is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing to clarify, and the description correctly adds no fictitious filtering or scope arguments that would mislead an agent.
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 names the resource precisely and enumerates the concrete contents returned (length, play state, loop region, markers, per-track clips with beat positions). That is a clear read operation, but there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from siblings that also surface clip/track data, such as clips_list or tracks_list.
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 call this versus alternatives like clips_list, tracks_list or transport_get, and no mention of preconditions. Usage is only inferable from the list of returned fields, which is the same gap the calibration MID example was penalized for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.