Retrieve a full song's settings, instruments, patterns, notes, and arrangement in an editable format, or return pattern summaries by disabling note details.
Returns the whole song: settings, instruments, patterns with their notes, and the arrangement. Notes are in the same form the editing tools take.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_notes | No | Set to false for just a summary of each pattern. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond it: the exact scope of what is returned and, importantly, that notes use the same representation the editing tools accept, implying round-trip compatibility. It omits any warning about payload size or cost for large songs, which keeps it from a 5.
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 with no filler; the payload contents come first and the interoperable note format second, both earning their place.
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 carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so at a useful level of detail for a whole-document reader. A note on response size or the summary mode would make it fully complete.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains include_notes fully. The description never mentions the flag, but given full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ("Returns the whole song") and enumerates the payload contents: settings, instruments, patterns with notes, and the arrangement. It is not explicitly differentiated from nearby readers like open_song or screenshot_app, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The clause about notes matching the editing tools' format implies the intended workflow (read state, then edit), but the agent must infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.