Splits each take of a MIDI item onto its own track, enabling side-by-side comparison or comping.
Puts each take of an item on its own new track, to compare or comp them side by side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect — one new track is created per take — which is genuine behavioral value. However, it doesn't say whether the source item survives, whether the operation is reversible/undoable, or how the new tracks are named or routed.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the effect and closed with the rationale. Zero filler, nothing to trim.
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?
Adequate for a one-parameter tool with no output schema: the agent knows what happens and why. It falls short on the state of the original item and on whether this applies to audio takes as well as the MIDI item implied by the schema, which matters for a track-creating operation.
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 there is a single required parameter fully documented in the schema (item_id, including the 'selected' sentinel). The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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-effect ('puts each take on its own new track') plus the motivating use case ('compare or comp them side by side'), which is far clearer than a name restatement. It doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby take tools like list_takes or choose_take, but the resource and effect are unambiguous.
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 'to compare or comp them side by side' implies the scenario in which the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., choose_take for selecting a single take, or list_takes for inspection).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.