Reads shared DAW/agent session state including playhead, region, mode, and selection to help podcast agents inspect the timeline and coordinate edits.
Read shared DAW/agent session state (playhead, region, mode, selection).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden; 'Read' does signal a non-mutating operation, and 'shared' hints that the state is cross-agent. However it says nothing about permissions, what happens when no session exists, or whether polling is expected.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and returned fields up front; nothing redundant or padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a simple read tool the description covers what is retrieved. The remaining hole is the optional project_path semantics, which is the only notable gap.
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 single parameter project_path is completely undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. The key question – whether omission means the active project – is unaddressed, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 (Read) and resource (shared DAW/agent session state) and enumerates the state fields returned (playhead, region, mode, selection). This clearly separates it from setters like set_session_mode_tool and from presence/seek siblings, though it never names those alternatives directly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read' – an agent can infer this is the way to inspect current session state before acting. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to get_session_presence_tool or the set_session_* counterparts, so the agent must infer routing from names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.