Read note positions in a MIDI item to understand its melodic and rhythmic content. Use an item ID or 'selected' to fetch quarter-note positions from the item start.
Reads the notes in a MIDI item (positions in quarter notes from the item start).
| 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 readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real value by specifying that positions are reported in quarter notes measured from the item start. It stops short of describing the full return shape (velocity, channel, etc.) or any filtering, but the unit/coordinate context is genuinely useful.
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 with the zero-waste parenthetical carrying the most decision-relevant detail (position units). Nothing extraneous.
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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only the detailed return structure is left implicit, which is a minor gap.
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 single item_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 'selected' special value. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 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 (Reads) and resource (notes in a MIDI item), clearly distinguishing it from mutation siblings like add_midi_notes, edit_midi_notes, and delete_midi_notes. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the read-versus-write contrast is obvious from the vocabulary.
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 read verb and the item_id parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of when to prefer a different sibling. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.