Retrieve MIDI notes and loop length from a session clip to inspect pitch, timing, and velocity for editing or analysis.
Notes of a session MIDI clip (pitch, start and duration in beats, velocity) and its loop length.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes | 0-based clip slot (scene row) on the track. | |
| track | Yes | Track id (UUID string from tracks.list, stable) or 0-based index (shifts when tracks are added or moved). |
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, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return contents and the unit convention (times in beats), which the agent cannot get from any output schema since none exists. It stops short of saying what happens for an empty slot or a non-MIDI clip.
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 fragment with zero filler; every token carries information. It reads as a return-value spec rather than an action statement, which is slightly less scannable than a verb-first sentence but costs no waste.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only source on return values and it does list the fields, but not their structure (flat list? per-note objects?) or ordering, and it says nothing about empty slots or non-MIDI clips. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read, but not fully self-sufficient.
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 100% — both 'track' (UUID or shifting 0-based index) and 'slot' (0-based scene row, 0-255) are fully documented in-schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that track+slot identify the clip, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names the exact resource — notes of a session MIDI clip — and enumerates the returned fields (pitch, start, duration, velocity) plus loop length, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as clips_list (finding the clip) or arrangement_get (non-session clip data), leaving that inference to the agent.
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 phrase 'session MIDI clip' implicitly scopes usage: not arrangement clips, not audio clips. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of using clips_list to discover a valid track/slot first, and no stated alternatives or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.