Retrieve arrangement timeline clips for one Ableton Live track, including clip IDs, types, and start/end beat positions. Use the track ID from list_tracks to inspect its arrangement clips.
Read timeline clip IDs, types, and start/end positions in beats for one track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackId | Yes | ID from list_tracks. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "clips": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "endBeats": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "lengthBeats": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "startBeats": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "stateVersion": {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "trackId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "stateVersion",
+ "clips"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "outcome": {
+ "enum": [
+ "unknown",
+ "not_executed"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "message",
+ "outcome"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+]v0.3.0Input schema / properties / trackId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Stable track ID returned by list_tracks."New value: +"ID from list_tracks."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is low. The description adds real context beyond that – it enumerates the returned fields (IDs, types, start/end positions in beats) and the one-track scoping – but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty results.
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?
One sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the scope constraint. Nothing wasted and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, this is nearly complete – it tells the agent what it gets back and confines it to a track. Only the absence of any sibling routing guidance keeps it from a 5.
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 coverage is 100% and the single trackId is already documented as 'ID from list_tracks.' The description adds only that results are scoped to that one track, which is a modest clarification. Schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3.
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?
Specific verb (read/list) plus resource (timeline clip IDs, types, start/end positions) and scope (one track), which distinguishes it from the many mutating arrangement-clip siblings like move/duplicate/delete_arrangement_clip. It does not explicitly name a sibling it should be chosen over (e.g. list_clips for session clips), so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. The agent must infer from 'for one track' that this is the per-track read path versus list_clips, but nothing in the text states that routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.