Stop DAW transport in place and clear the highlight region. Use when you need to end playback without resetting to the start position.
Pause DAW transport in place and clear the highlight region (GUI Stop / K also returns to the play start; this tool does not).
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key non-obvious trait (it does not return to play start) and that it clears the highlight region, but says nothing about whether this mutates persisted session state, whether it is safe/idempotent, or how it interacts with an active recording.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and a tight parenthetical for the behavioral caveat. No filler, nothing that fails to earn its 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core behavior is covered. However, for an unannotated state-mutating transport tool, the description leaves the project_path semantics and the effect on session/recording state unaddressed.
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 has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. With an optional project_path present, it is unclear whether the tool acts on the current session or a specified project, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 action pair ('pause DAW transport in place', 'clear the highlight region') with a concrete scope, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not name a sibling tool, but the parenthetical distinguishes it behaviorally from GUI Stop/K, so an agent can place it among transport controls.
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: the note that GUI Stop/K returns to play start while 'this tool does not' hints at when to prefer this tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative (e.g., record_stop_tool, set_session_playing_tool), and no stated preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.