Retrieves the groove pool's index, name, base grid, and amount values plus the global groove amount, so you can pick a groove and assign it to a clip with set_clip(groove=...).
The groove pool: each groove's index, name, base grid and amounts (percent), plus the global groove amount (0..1.31). Assign a groove to a clip with set_clip(groove=...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the shape of the returned data and the non-obvious global groove amount range (0..1.31), which an agent could not infer from the empty schema.
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 sentences, zero filler. The return payload is front-loaded and the follow-up action is placed second, which is the correct order for an agent deciding whether to read.
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 and no input parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing the response, and it does so: field list, units (percent), and the exceptional global amount range. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The only parameter-like information given is for a different tool (set_clip's groove argument), which is still helpful for chaining but does not apply here.
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 names the resource ('the groove pool') and enumerates exactly what it yields — index, name, base grid, amounts, global amount — so an agent can distinguish it from set_groove and set_clip. The verb is implicit (a noun phrase rather than 'returns/lists'), which keeps it short of a 5, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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?
It routes the agent forward by naming set_clip(groove=...) as the way to assign a groove, which is useful context for what to do after reading. However, it never states when to call this getter versus set_groove, nor any precondition, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.