Skip to main content
Glama

inspect_producer_chain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare the devices on one exact Ableton track against a named producer-chain blueprint, checking factory profiles and order without loading or changing anything.

Instructions

Read the devices on one exact track and compare their factory profiles and order with a named producer-chain blueprint. No devices are loaded or changed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
trackIdYestrack-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedOutput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "properties": {
      +      "stateVersion": {
      +        "minimum": 1,
      +        "type": "integer"
      +      },
      +      "trackId": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "verification": {
      +        "type": "object"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "stateVersion",
      +      "trackId",
      +      "verification"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "properties": {
      +      "error": {
      +        "properties": {
      +          "message": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "outcome": {
      +            "enum": [
      +              "unknown",
      +              "not_executed"
      +            ]
      +          }
      +        },
      +        "required": [
      +          "message",
      +          "outcome"
      +        ],
      +        "type": "object"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "error"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  }
      +]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / trackId / description
      Previous value: -"Stable device-owner ID: track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master."New value: +"track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / target / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "bass",
      -  "drums",
      -  "vocals",
      -  "guitar",
      -  "keys",
      -  "synth",
      -  "mix-bus",
      -  "mastering",
      -  "reverb-return",
      -  "delay-return",
      -  "layered-bass-system",
      -  "layered-synth-system"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "bass",
      +  "drums",
      +  "vocals",
      +  "guitar",
      +  "keys",
      +  "synth",
      +  "mix-bus",
      +  "mastering",
      +  "reverb-return",
      +  "delay-return",
      +  "layered-bass-system",
      +  "layered-synth-system",
      +  "layered-drums-system",
      +  "layered-keys-system",
      +  "layered-vocals-system",
      +  "layered-guitar-system"
      +]
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so 'No devices are loaded or changed' is largely redundant reinforcement rather than new disclosure. The description does clarify that the operation is a comparison (not a chain dump), which adds some context, but says nothing about what the comparison returns or how mismatches are surfaced.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and scope come first, the non-mutation guarantee second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema and rich annotations cover the return shape and safety profile, so little more is needed. However, the description says the comparison is against a 'named producer-chain blueprint' while the input schema exposes only target and trackId and no blueprint parameter, leaving an unexplained mismatch an agent must guess at.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: trackId is documented in the schema, while the 16-value target enum has no description anywhere. The description's 'one exact track' hints that trackId is a single track id, but it never explains what target selects or how it relates to the 'named producer-chain blueprint' it mentions, leaving the primary parameter unexplained.

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 pair (read devices, compare profiles/order) and a specific resource scope (one exact track vs. a producer-chain blueprint). The phrase 'one exact track' differentiates it from broader siblings like inspect_producer_bus and list_devices, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The comparison framing implies when to use it (auditing a track's device chain against a blueprint), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over inspect_producer_bus, list_devices, or get_producer_chain_blueprint. Usage must be inferred.

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