Replace time signature changes from a chosen bar with custom beats per unit, or clear them to restore the project signature everywhere. Undoable.
Replace the time signature changes: from a bar on, so many beats of a unit (7/8, 3/4, …). Empty = the project signature everywhere. Undoable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| points | Yes | Signature changes in bar order. |
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=false and idempotent=true. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the replace-all semantics (existing changes are overwritten), the empty-list reset behavior, and undoability — all critical for a mutation tool. Return shape is not described, but that is the only material gap.
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?
Three compact clauses: the action, the empty-case behavior, and the undo guarantee. No wasted words, and the mutation scope is front-loaded.
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 single required array parameter with nested documented fields and no output schema, the description covers action, reset semantics, and reversibility. It could mention ordering constraints or that bars beyond the project length are ignored, but nothing essential to a correct call 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the nested item fields are documented. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: that each point defines a signature 'from a bar on' (persisting forward) and that an empty array restores the project signature everywhere — a semantic not captured by 'Signature changes in bar order.'
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 ('Replace the time signature changes') with a concrete format illustration (7/8, 3/4). It does not reference the neighboring tempo tools (tempo_set_map, transport_set_tempo), so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself 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?
The clause 'Empty = the project signature everywhere' is a genuine usage hint about the reset case, which is more than most definitions offer. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to tempo_set_map or transport_set_tempo, so selection between siblings is left implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.