Lists every track in the active SONAR project; when CakeScript dispatch is unavailable, use the MIDI export and read-back route instead.
List all tracks in the active SONAR project. NEEDS CakeScript (T1), which this SONAR build cannot dispatch — on this build use the export route instead: cw_run_command 0xA659 (文件 > 导出 > 标准 MIDI 文件), then cw_read_midi_file on the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the most important behavioral fact: the tool requires CakeScript (T1) and is undispatchable on this build. It does not describe error behavior or return format, but the unavailability disclosure is the critical trait for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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?
Two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and then the blocker/workaround. The Chinese menu path and command code are dense but necessary to make the workaround actionable, so they earn their 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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential operational context: it is unavailable and here is the substitute path. Minor gaps remain around what format the track list would take and how failures surface, but an agent has what it needs to act 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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to add or omit.
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: 'List all tracks in the active SONAR project', which an agent can immediately understand. It does not differentiate itself from list-adjacent siblings such as cw_list_state or cw_get_clips, but its unavailability warning effectively redirects the agent anyway.
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 this build cannot dispatch the tool and gives the exact alternative route: cw_run_command 0xA659 followed by cw_read_midi_file on the result. This is a textbook when-not-to-use plus named alternatives plus a concrete workaround sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.