Inspect a track's session clip slots to see empty status, clip kind, loop length, note count, and playing or queued state.
The session clip slots (scene rows) of a track: empty or not, kind (midi/audio/sequencer), loop length in beats, note count, playing / queued.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the reported fields, which substitutes for the absent output schema. It does not state ordering (scene index order?), whether empty slots are always included, or what 'queued' means operationally.
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 dense sentence with no filler and the resource scope front-loaded before the field enumeration. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a sentence, which is slightly terse for an agent skimming for selection cues, but nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the field enumeration covers most of what an agent needs. Missing: result ordering, whether empty slots appear, and any hint of result shape (array of objects vs. keyed map), which the absent output schema would otherwise carry.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains the UUID-vs-index tradeoff and the index instability caveat. The description says nothing about the track argument, so baseline 3 applies — it neither adds nor detracts from what the schema provides.
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 specific resource — the session clip slots (scene rows) belonging to one track — and enumerates the per-slot facts reported (empty/occupied, kind, loop length, note count, playing/queued). An agent can distinguish this from scenes_list (whole scenes) and clips_get_notes (note payload of one clip) without opening a schema. It lacks an explicit verb ('list'), but the resource scope is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the way to survey what fills a track's scene slots before doing anything clip-related. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. scenes_list for a per-scene cross-track view, clips_get_notes when note content is needed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.