ableton-mind

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

track_upsert

Finds an existing track by name and type, or creates a new one if not found. Prevents duplicate tracks with the same name and type.

Instructions

Find or create a track by name and type. Use when a workflow needs a named target track but should avoid duplicates. Idempotent: returns changed=false when the track already exists; verified by returned name/type.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "track_upsert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`index`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. Mentions idempotency and changed flag, but does not explain behavior for optional index or error scenarios. Somewhat informative but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has 3 parameters, no output schema. Description covers the core upsert behavior and idempotency, but lacks explanation for index parameter and any error handling details. Moderately complete for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description needs to explain parameters. It covers name and type, but completely omits the optional index parameter, leaving its purpose and behavior ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (find or create), the resource (track), and the key criteria (name and type), making it distinct from sibling tools like track_create.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use (to avoid duplicates), and implies idempotency. However, doesn't explicitly exclude cases or mention direct alternatives, though track_create is a clear sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.