Render a saved .flp project to a WAV file without a window or audio device; save the open project first so the output reflects current edits.
Render a saved .flp project to an audio file (.wav), with no window and no audio device. Save the open project first (save_project) to render what is in the app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out | Yes | ||
| rate | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| seconds | No | ||
| builtin_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: rendering is offline/headless ('no window and no audio device') and it operates on the saved project file rather than live in-memory state. It omits error behavior, whether the call blocks for the render duration, and whether the output file is overwritten.
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 output format, followed by the prerequisite. No filler, boilerplate, or repetition.
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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and prerequisite but nothing about the parameters or what a successful call yields (output path, duration). Not sufficient for reliable invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description only hints that 'out' is a .wav target. The meanings of 'seconds' (render length), 'rate' (sample rate), 'builtin_only', and the format of 'project' are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
Uses a specific verb and resource: render a saved .flp project to a .wav file. It also states the distinguishing execution mode (headless, no audio device), which separates it from playback tools like play/transport_status, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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?
Explicitly states the prerequisite 'Save the open project first (save_project) to render what is in the app,' which is real when-to-use guidance and names the cooperating sibling. No exclusion conditions or alternatives for rendering a range vs. the whole project are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.