project_infoSummarizes a text-based music project by extracting its grid, tracks, buses, master, and sounds. Use it to inspect project structure before editing or comparing DAW files.
Summary of the whole project: grid, tracks (instrument, note count, bars used, fx), buses, master, sounds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the content scope of the summary (tracks, buses, master, sounds). However, it never states that the operation is non-destructive/read-only, nor any side effects or permissions, leaving key behavioral traits implied.
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 front-loaded sentence listing the summary's contents with no filler. Efficient, though the parenthetical enumeration is dense.
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-value explanation is not required. For a simple one-parameter info tool, the content list is reasonably complete, but the undocumented 'project' argument leaves a gap the agent must guess at.
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% for the single required 'project' parameter, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about what form the project identifier takes. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools does not apply here, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific resource ('the whole project') and enumerates the contents it summarizes (grid, tracks with instrument/note count/bars/fx, buses, master, sounds), so an agent knows this is a project-wide read/info tool. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from analyzer siblings like analyze_overview or analyze_structure.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The reader must infer that this is the high-level read tool from the name and content list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.