Retrieves one Cakewalk SONAR track's properties by 1-based index. Requires CakeScript dispatch, so use cw_get_track_control to read a single strip control when it is unavailable.
Get one track's properties. NEEDS CakeScript (T1), which this SONAR build cannot dispatch. cw_get_track_control reads a single strip control and works without it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | 1-based track index |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden; it discloses the critical trait that the tool cannot be dispatched in this build, which is far beyond what the schema says. It stops short of describing the actual failure mode (error vs. empty result) or what 'properties' are returned, which would be needed for a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, with the capability description first and the limitation/alternative immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool that is effectively non-functional in this build, the description gives the essential context an agent needs: what it does, why it may not work, and where to go instead. It omits return-value shape and failure behavior, but with no output schema and a simple getter, that gap is minor.
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 'index' parameter is fully documented as a 1-based track index. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Get one track's properties') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling cw_get_track_control, which reads a single strip control. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns versus its nearest alternative without opening either schema.
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?
Explicitly says the tool needs CakeScript (T1) which 'this SONAR build cannot dispatch', and names cw_get_track_control as the working alternative. This is a clear when-not-to-use plus a direct routing instruction, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.