Read a session or Arrangement audio clip's warp markers from its LOM path, returning explicit source seconds and clip-local beats, including Live's shadow marker.
Read explicit source seconds and clip-local beats, including Live's shadow marker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Session or Arrangement audio clip LOM path. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds the Live-specific detail that output includes the shadow marker and distinguishes source-second vs clip-local-beat data, which is useful context beyond the annotations.
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 that packs the verb, resource, and return payload with zero filler.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover behavior. The only real gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance relative to set_warp_markers.
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% with a single 'path' parameter documented as a Session or Arrangement audio clip LOM path. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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 (read) and resource (warp markers) plus the payload it returns: explicit source seconds and clip-local beats. An agent can distinguish it from the write counterpart set_warp_markers by the read verb, though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the obvious sibling set_warp_markers, nor any prerequisite context. Usage is only implied by the read verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.