Move the audio cursor to the project's end to locate the final audio segment quickly.
Move the cursor to the end of the project (last audio).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "cursor_to_project_end"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and it does state the primary behavior: cursor movement to project end. It does not mention whether selection is cleared or playback is affected, but for a simple cursor command this is a minor gap.
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?
One short sentence carries all the essential information with no filler. The parenthetical adds useful precision without bloating the description.
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 cursor navigation tool, the description is nearly complete. The only small ambiguity is what exactly 'last audio' means, but in an audio-project context this is a reasonable shorthand for the end of the final audio clip.
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 and the schema is fully covered at 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. Baseline of 4 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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('cursor') with an exact destination ('end of the project') and clarifies with '(last audio)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cursor_to_track_end and cursor_to_project_start.
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 intended use is clear in context: call this when the cursor should jump to the last audio in the project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the project-vs-track distinction is evident from the tool name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.