Read the song currently open in Studio One, including title, transport state, tempo, loop range, track count and selected tracks, even when changes are unsaved.
The song open in Studio One right now: title, transport (playing, recording, loop, position, tempo, loop range, precount, preroll), track count and selected tracks. Unlike song_read this includes unsaved changes.
| 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 it does disclose the key behavioral trait that the state is live and includes unsaved changes — a meaningful distinction from persisted reads. It stops short of describing side effects, permissions, or refresh semantics, but for a read-only snapshot tool this is solid coverage.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and then the field inventory and the sibling contrast. The parenthetical field list is dense but each item is informative; no filler sentences.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the return contents (transport sub-fields, track count, selected tracks). Combined with the song_read contrast, an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result, though deeper detail (e.g., position/tempo units) is absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to add or omit.
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+resource: reading the song currently open in Studio One, and enumerates exactly what is returned (title, transport state, track count, selected tracks). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling song_read, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.
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 contrast with song_read ('includes unsaved changes') gives clear selection guidance: use live_song when the current, possibly-unsaved state matters. It does not spell out explicit when-not conditions or name other alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.