Set and read tempo and time signature in Cakewalk SONAR by writing changes into a MIDI file and importing it; insert at now-time only when applying a separate change.
How to set and read tempo and time signature. Writing them into a .mid and importing is the reliable route; inserting a change at the now-time is a different operation.
| 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 and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never says whether calling this tool mutates project state or just returns documentation, nor what the response looks like. The advisory tone implies a read-only help topic, but that is inference rather than disclosure.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the topic before the routing caveat, with no filler. The second sentence is a little compressed (".mid" route vs. "now-time" insert) and could be slightly plainer, but nothing is wasted.
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, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum state the nature of the return value (guidance text vs. state change). It conveys the domain scope adequately but leaves that contract unstated, so an agent can't fully predict the outcome of a call.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% with an empty properties object, consistent with a parameterless call.
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 names the resource (tempo and time signature) and the operations (setting and reading), but frames it as "How to...", leaving it ambiguous whether the tool performs the operation or returns guidance about it. It also does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as cw_write_midi_file or cw_insert_commands that it implicitly references.
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?
The second sentence offers a genuine routing hint — prefer writing tempo/time signature into a .mid and importing it, while inserting an at-now-time change is a separate operation. However, it never names which sibling tool implements either route, nor states the condition under which an agent should call cw_timing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.