Retrieve all notes for a specified pattern, including channel, position, length, key, velocity, and pan, so you can inspect or edit a Lemon Studio music project.
The notes of pattern pattern (an id): channel id, position, length, key, velocity, pan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | beats | |
| pattern | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 lists the note fields returned, but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention side effects, error behavior, or whether missing patterns return empty results.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with a colon list of returned fields. It is front-loaded on the core object, though the phrasing is slightly terse and cryptic.
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?
For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It lists return fields but omits the unit parameter semantics, result format details, and any behavioral context.
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 `pattern` parameter is clarified as an id, which adds some meaning. However, schema coverage is 0%, and the `unit` parameter with its beats/ticks enum and 'beats' default is completely unmentioned, leaving a significant 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?
The description identifies the resource precisely: notes belonging to a specific pattern id, and it lists the returned fields. It is not verb-led and does not explicitly contrast itself with write_notes or clear_notes, but the read-oriented meaning is still clear.
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 guidance on when to use this versus write_notes, clear_notes, or other read tools. The retrieval intent is only implied by the name and the field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.