Reads marker number, position, and name from the open Studio One song by briefly moving the playhead and restoring it; refuses while playing.
Markers of the song open in Studio One right now: number, position (seconds and bar display) and name. Briefly moves the playhead to read them and puts it back; refuses while playing. Only markers 1-20 are visible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: it briefly moves the playhead and restores it, refuses while playback is active, and only exposes markers 1-20. It does not detail error behavior beyond refusal or whether the playhead movement is observable, but the side effect and precondition are clearly stated.
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?
The description is compact and front-loads the returned data, then adds the playhead side effect, playback refusal, and visibility cap. No sentence 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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, side effect, precondition, and visibility limit. That is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description has no parameter semantics to add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 identifies the resource (markers currently open in Studio One) and the returned fields (number, position in seconds/bar display, name), so an agent can tell it is a read/list operation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like live_add_marker or live_delete_marker, but the 'right now' scope distinguishes it from mutation tools.
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?
It implies use when you need current marker data and notes the 'refuses while playing' precondition, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over live_add_marker, live_rename_marker, or live_delete_marker. The 1-20 visibility limit is a usage constraint rather than alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.