Skip to main content
Glama
LiveSession MCP
by Uri-Rosen

get_browser_tree

Read-only

Retrieves a hierarchical tree of Ableton browser categories so you can inspect available instruments, sounds, drums, audio effects, and MIDI effects by category type.

Instructions

Get a hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton.

Parameters:

  • category_type: Type of categories to get ('all', 'instruments', 'sounds', 'drums', 'audio_effects', 'midi_effects')

  • user_prompt: The original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry)

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": "get_browser_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_promptNo
category_typeNoall

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that the tree comes from Ableton and that user_prompt is for telemetry, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as traversal depth or scope beyond categories.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then uses a compact parameter list. Every sentence and bullet serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a simple read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, so the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. It could better situate the tool relative to get_browser_items_at_path and search_browser, leaving a small contextual gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and no enum is defined in the schema, so the description meaningfully supplies the allowed category_type values. It also explains user_prompt as telemetry, though it omits some details such as defaults and format expectations.

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, 'Get', and resource, 'hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton', so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from browser-related siblings such as get_browser_items_at_path or search_browser, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives, despite several similar browser-related siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name and stated action.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools