Retrieve the exact input, output, and monitoring configuration for a single Ableton track. Use this to inspect routing choices, with monitoring shown as null for Group Tracks.
Read exact input, output, and monitoring choices for one track. Group Tracks expose monitoring as null because Live does not support it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackId | Yes | Stable track ID returned by list_tracks. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that. It adds a useful behavioral caveat: Group Tracks expose monitoring as null because Live does not support it, which is valuable edge-case context beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the group-track caveat is placed second where it adds context without obscuring the core purpose.
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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, the key behavioral exception, and the safety profile through annotations. There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return structure, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema already fully documents trackId as a stable track ID returned by list_tracks, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it also does not enrich trackId beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource: exact input, output, and monitoring choices for one track. This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like set_track_routing and from the more specific get_track_midi_routing.
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?
It is clear that this tool is for reading routing configuration for a single track, which implies a read-only context versus set_track_routing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it falls short of full guidance, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.