Read the Arrangement song length in beats from an Ableton Live Set for timing, editing, or automation tasks. Returns the length in beats without changing the set.
Read the derived Arrangement song length in beats.
Side effects: none.
Example: get_song_length() returns {"song_length": 64.25}.
Edge cases: the LOM property is read-only; no setter tool exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that there are no side effects and that the LOM property is read-only with no setter. It also gives a concrete return example, though it says nothing about auth or failure modes.
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?
The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly labeled side-effect, example, and edge-case notes. Every sentence adds information an agent can use, with no padding.
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 simple no-argument read with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and value type via example plus the read-only constraint, which is everything needed to call it correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: read the derived Arrangement song length in beats. That is unambiguous and distinct from most siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any related tool (e.g. get_loop_settings), so it stops short of a 5.
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 only implied by the read verb; there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisite context. The read-only framing hints at its role but is not real when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.