Retrieve a list of all tracks in the current project, showing basic parameters like name, mute, solo, volume, and pan.
List all tracks in the current project with their basic parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what constitutes 'basic parameters', or what happens if the project has no tracks. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that likely performs a read operation.
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?
Single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. Clearly front-loaded and efficient.
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 simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves 'basic parameters' undefined. While it covers the core function, additional detail on what parameters are returned would improve completeness.
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?
No parameters exist in the schema, so the description's mention of 'basic parameters' refers to the output, not inputs. Since schema coverage is 100% (empty), the description adds no parameter info but also does not need to. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?
Description clearly states it lists all tracks, specifying the resource (tracks) and action (list). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_track_info', which might be for individual tracks.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_track_info' or other listing tools. The description does not mention context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.