Lists a track's MIDI effects chain in processing order, so you can inspect which MIDI FX are applied and how they are sequenced.
The MIDI FX chain of a track, in processing order.
| 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, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the chain is returned in processing order, but it does not describe the return format or edge cases.
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?
It is a single efficient sentence with no waste, and the key scope and ordering information is front-loaded.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description says enough to call it correctly. Since no output schema exists, it could say more about the returned chain's contents, but the high-level return is clear.
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%, so the track parameter's UUID/index semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.
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 identifies the resource precisely: the MIDI FX chain of a track, plus its ordering. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' and does not differentiate from siblings such as midi_fx_get, but the purpose is still clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus midi_fx_get, midi_fx_types, or other MIDI FX siblings. The listing use case is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.