Delete notes from a MIDI item by pitch or start/end range; with no filters, all notes are removed.
Deletes notes from a MIDI item; with no filters, all of them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | Only notes starting before this QN position | |
| pitch | No | Only this pitch | |
| start | No | Only notes starting at or after this QN position | |
| item_id | Yes | MIDI item id from create_midi_item/get_track_details, or "selected" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: deletion scope is controlled by filters, and omitting them deletes every note in the item. It does not mention irreversibility/undo or confirmation, which keeps it from a 5.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and immediately qualifies it with the unfiltered-destruction caveat. No filler, no redundancy.
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 needed, annotations covering destructiveness, and full schema parameter documentation, the description supplies what is missing most: that unfiltered calls delete everything. Minor gaps remain, such as whether filters combine as AND and whether the deletion is undoable.
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%, so all four parameters (item_id, start, end, pitch) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only restates the filter concept ('with no filters') without adding syntax, units, or combination semantics beyond what the schema says.
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 (deletes) and resource (notes from a MIDI item), which is enough to distinguish it from delete_item, delete_midi_cc, and delete_note. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other note-editing/deleting siblings such as edit_midi_notes or delete_note, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
The clause 'with no filters, all of them' implicitly tells the agent that calling without filters is allowed and destructive, which is a form of usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative (e.g., 'use edit_midi_notes to remove a subset by editing'), so guidance remains implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.