Controls Cakewalk SONAR playback, recording, pause, and stop by sending play, stop, record, or pause commands, falling back to menu commands when CakeScript dispatch fails.
Send a transport command (play | stop | record | pause). Tries CakeScript first and falls back to SONAR's own menu commands, so it works on builds where T1 cannot be dispatched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cmd | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the CakeScript-first, SONAR-menu fallback behavior, which is non-obvious and affects reliability, but it does not describe return values, failure behavior, or any side effects of commands like record.
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 description is two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the fallback behavior that adds useful context.
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 one-parameter command tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and backend fallback sufficiently. It could be stronger by mentioning whether the command reports success or failure, but the essential information for calling it correctly is present.
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 0%, but the single cmd parameter is a self-explanatory enum. The description repeats the allowed values without adding semantics such as what happens on record versus play, so it only minimally compensates for the schema gap.
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: send a transport command, with the allowed commands spelled out. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the closely related sibling cw_transport_command, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 implied by the command list and the fallback note, which suggests this tool is useful on builds where T1 cannot be dispatched. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as cw_transport_command or cw_run_command.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.