Fetch the note names a track's instrument reports, plus any saved drum map for that instrument. Use it to map drum kit or sampler notes by track and channel.
Note names the track's instrument reports (drum kits and samplers often name their notes: 'Kick', 'Snare Rim'...), plus any saved drum map for it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | Track number (1 = top), track name, or "master" | |
| channel | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, lowering the bar. The description usefully clarifies the return content (instrument-reported note names and a saved drum map), but adds nothing on failure modes, e.g. what happens for an instrument that reports no note names.
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 no waste. The parenthetical example ('Kick', 'Snare Rim') earns its place by concretely illustrating the output, though the sentence is slightly awkwardly framed.
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?
For a no-output-schema read tool the description conveys the salient return content, but it leaves the undocumented 'channel' parameter and the routing vs. sibling tools unexplained, so it is only marginally complete.
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 only 50%: 'track' is well described in the schema (number, name, or "master"), but 'channel' has no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate for it or add meaning beyond the schema's track text.
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+resource: it retrieves the note names a track's instrument reports, plus any saved drum map. This is meaningfully distinct from MIDI-content siblings, but the description never names get_midi_notes or list_drum_maps to make the distinction explicit for the agent.
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 is given. With many adjacent siblings (get_midi_notes, list_drum_maps, map_drum_kit, save_drum_map), the agent gets no signal about when this read is the right call versus those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.