Launch all clips in a scene row together, quantised like a scene click, and start playback unless start_transport is false.
Launch every clip of a scene row together, quantised like a click on the scene. Starts the transport unless start_transport is false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene | Yes | 0-based scene row. | |
| start_transport | No | Start playback if stopped (default true). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real context beyond the annotations: the launch is quantised, and the transport side effect is disclosed with the start_transport escape hatch. What is missing is whether other currently playing scenes/clips are stopped or left running, which is the key behavioral question for a live-performance launch.
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?
Two tightly written sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the conditional side effect second. 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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations that declare the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is whether launching a scene stops other scenes.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the start_transport default. The description reinforces the transport behavior but adds no new syntax or semantic detail beyond 'quantised', which applies to the launch itself rather than to a parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: launching all clips of a scene row at once. The phrase 'every clip of a scene row together' implicitly distinguishes it from clips_launch (single clip) and transport_play, but it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 scene-row scope implies when to use it over clips_launch, and 'quantised like a click on the scene' signals the musical context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.