Detect transient events such as note attacks and drum hits by rendering the REAPER project, returning onset count and timing for up to 100 events.
Render the project and detect transient events (note attacks, drum hits, etc.). Returns the count and timing of up to 100 transient onset events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two non-obvious traits — that the tool performs a render (a side effect beyond a pure read) and that results are capped at 100 onsets. It omits whether the render writes files, whether it covers the whole project or a time selection, and what units the timing uses.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return shape. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape (count plus onset timings, capped at 100). It stops short of specifying timing units, ordering, or whether the render operates on the full project, which matters for a tool whose behavior depends on a render step.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of 'up to 100 transient onset events' usefully frames the result size but is not a parameter concern.
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?
Specific verb-plus-resource: renders the project and detects transient events, calling out note attacks and drum hits as examples. This is clearly distinct from sibling analyses (analyze_loudness, analyze_dynamics, detect_clipping), so an agent can route correctly without reading further.
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 description never says when to choose this over the other analyze_* siblings, nor any precondition such as requiring audio/MIDI content or a completed render. Usage is only inferrable from the stated return value (count and timing of onsets).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.