Retrieve paginated FL Studio track names and indices, optionally including mixer routing for channels, to inspect project structure. Use the next start index to read subsequent pages.
List track names and indices; channel results also show mixer routing. Follow next_start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | mixer | |
| limit | No | Maximum tracks to read | |
| start | No | First index in this page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the schema: that results are paginated via a next_start cursor (a return value not present in the input schema) and that output shape varies by kind.
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 with the primary behavior front-loaded and no wasted words. "Follow next_start" is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, since nothing explains that next_start is a returned cursor, but the density is appropriate.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it only partially does: names/indices, routing for channels, and a next_start cursor. It omits what the mixer kind returns, how the two kinds differ, and what happens when next_start is absent (last page).
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 coverage is 67% — limit and start are already documented in the schema. The description adds partial meaning for the undescribed 'kind' enum by explaining what channel results contain, but never contrasts mixer vs channel or states what the default mixer mode returns. Baseline 3 fits.
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 track names and indices") and adds a conditional output distinction (channel results include mixer routing). It is clearly the only track-listing tool among siblings like list_fl_plugins and get_fl_parameters, though it never names the sibling it differs from.
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 only implied: "channel results also show mixer routing" hints that kind=channel is the choice when routing matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. An agent must infer which of mixer vs channel it wants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.