LiveSession MCP

by Uri-Rosen

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

create_return_track

Adds a return track for shared reverb/delay and returns its return index for set_mixer sends.

Instructions

Add a return track (for shared reverb/delay); returns its return index for set_mixer sends.

Tool call template

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": "create_return_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the call returns a return index consumed by set_mixer sends, which is largely redundant with the existing output schema. No mention of failure modes, whether the track is created armed/empty, or ordering relative to set_mixer.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, its purpose, and its return value are all packed efficiently.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, so the remaining burden is the single undocumented parameter. For a simple one-param creation tool the description is close to sufficient, but the optional 'name' semantics and the state of the newly created track are left unstated.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the sole parameter 'name' (string, default "") is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no indication that the name is optional or what happens when it is omitted (default empty vs auto-generated name).

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a return track') and immediately distinguishes the resource from sibling track creators (create_midi_track, create_audio_track) by its intended use: 'for shared reverb/delay'. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema, though the distinction from siblings is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the parenthetical 'for shared reverb/delay', which tells the agent this is the right tool when a shared FX bus is needed, and the mention of 'set_mixer sends' signals the natural follow-up call. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for adding non-return tracks.

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

Deploy Server