Create a new editable DAW project with a specified name, tempo, meter, and length in ticks. Use it to initialize a blank session for building music tracks without automatic generation.
Create an editable project. Timing uses integer ticks, 960 ticks per quarter note. No implicit music generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bpm | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| meter | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| length_ticks | Yes | ||
| duration_frames | No | ||
| instrument_policy | No | plugin_first |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the tick-based timing system and explicitly states that no music is generated, which adds behavioral context. With no annotations and no output schema, it carries full burden but omits important behaviors like what happens when project_id already exists, whether defaults are applied, or any side effects.
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 where every phrase earns its place. The main verb-resource is front-loaded, followed by a necessary timing convention and a scope-limiting negative guarantee. No fluff.
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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is insufficient. An agent doesn't know the creation semantics (overwrite vs error), how defaults interact, what the return value is, or what 'editable' implies for future operations. The timing note is useful but not enough.
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%, and the description only contributes meaning for timing-related parameters ('integer ticks, 960 ticks per quarter note' clarifies length_ticks and bpm context). It does not explain project_id format, name constraints, meter array semantics, duration_frames, or instrument_policy, leaving most parameters undermined.
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 ('create') and resource ('editable project'), with a clarifying detail about timing ticks. It distinguishes itself from project_import/project_restore by emphasizing creation and editability, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.
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?
'Create an editable project' implies a from-scratch creation scenario, and 'No implicit music generation' sets an exclusion that routes generative-need agents away. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer project_create over project_import, project_apply, or project_restore.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.