List a track's automation lanes to see what each drives, segment and point counts, and the automated beat span for arrangement inspection.
The automation lanes of a track on the arrangement timeline: what each drives (its key), how many segments and points, the automated span in beats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | Track id (UUID string from tracks.list, stable) or 0-based index (shifts when tracks are added or moved). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the shape of the returned data (per-lane key, segment and point counts, beat span), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about ordering, lane limits, or behavior for tracks with no automation.
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?
A single dense sentence with zero padding, front-loaded on the resource and followed by the returned fields. It is a noun phrase rather than a complete statement, which makes it slightly less crisp as an opener.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only list with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers both the resource and the return contents. Only minor gaps remain: no guidance on when to call it relative to the automation write/clear siblings.
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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the UUID-vs-0-based-index duality and the index-shifting caveat in detail. The description contributes nothing about the track parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description names a specific resource — the automation lanes of a track on the arrangement timeline — and enumerates what is returned (key, segment/point counts, span in beats). It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', and it doesn't name the sibling it complements (automation_write / automation_clear), but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus automation_write or automation_clear, and no prerequisite context (e.g., 'call before writing to see existing lanes'). The read-only intent is inferable only from the name and annotations, not from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.