Retrieve detailed information about a specific track by providing its zero-based index. Use this to inspect track properties when managing LMMS projects.
Get detailed information about a specific track.
Args: track_index: Zero-based index of the track
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It signals a read-only operation with 'Get' and clarifies that the track is addressed by zero-based index, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior for invalid indices or what 'detailed information' actually includes.
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 lines of content with no redundant text; the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter documentation. It is as concise as a minimal but complete tool definition should be.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for a successful call. The agent knows the tool expects a zero-based track index. It would be slightly more complete if it pointed to list_tracks for obtaining valid indices, but that is not essential.
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 description explicitly documents 'Zero-based index of the track', adding critical meaning the raw schema lacks. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage; the agent knows to pass a zero-based integer rather than a one-based one.
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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific track'), making its purpose easy to understand. It is implicitly distinct from list_tracks (which lists all tracks), but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use get_track versus alternatives. The description implies the agent should call it when it needs details on one track, but does not reference list_tracks or mention preconditions like obtaining a valid track index.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.