notes_clearDelete notes starting within a bar range on a track, optionally limited to specified pitches, to clear or revise parts of a text-driven DAW project.
Delete notes starting in bars [a, b]; optionally only the given pitches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bars | Yes | ||
| track | Yes | ||
| pitches | No | ||
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, whether deletes can be undone, required permissions, or whether the operation affects only the specified track. For a destructive mutation, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, and no filler. It is appropriately sized but arguably too terse given the destructive nature of the tool.
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, but for a 4-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits critical context such as scope, safety, and the semantics of project/track.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters, but it only glosses bars and pitches. It never explains 'project' or 'track', and describing bars as a range [a, b] is ambiguous since the schema types it as an array.
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 (delete) and resource (notes) plus scope (bars, optionally pitches). It is distinguishable from siblings like notes_write and notes_read, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with notes_transform or undo, which could also affect note data.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no mention of the undo sibling for recovering deleted notes. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.