Inspect an audio sample to detect loop or one-shot type, drum or pitch, tempo, bars, key, and late start for accurate REAPER arrangement and mixing.
Listens to one sample: loop or one-shot, what drum it sounds like or what pitch it plays, a loop's tempo and length in bars and its key, and whether it starts late.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full path of an audio file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it spells out the concrete facts returned (loop/one-shot classification, drum identity, pitch, tempo in bars, key, late-start flag). It adds real information beyond the annotation, though it doesn't discuss edge cases like unsupported formats.
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?
One tight sentence, front-loaded with the core action and then the returned attributes. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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, the description must convey return content, which it does thoroughly for a one-parameter read tool. It is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (invalid/non-audio paths, very long files) is left unstated.
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 100% and the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter as an audio file path. The description adds no path syntax, format, or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (listens to/analyzes) and resource (one sample) and enumerates the attributes it extracts: loop vs one-shot, drum type, pitch, tempo, bars, key, late start. The single-sample scope distinguishes it from the broader analyze_audio sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose (inspect one sample file to learn its characteristics), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any routing to analyze_audio for longer material. Adequate but leaves the choice between the two analysis tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.