Retrieve all loaded devices from a specific Ableton track, return bus, or master channel by providing its track ID.
List loaded devices on one exact ordinary, Return, or Main track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackId | Yes | Stable device-owner ID: track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master. |
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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful scope ('loaded devices', 'one exact track') but does not disclose behavior like return format or empty-result handling. This is acceptable given the annotations but not exceptional.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the scope qualifier 'one exact' is placed before the track types.
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?
With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and readOnly annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema means the return shape is not documented, but 'List loaded devices' reasonably implies the result. Some detail about what counts as a device could improve it, but it is largely complete.
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%: the trackId property explains the valid forms track-N, return-N, and master. The description echoes this by naming ordinary, Return, and Main tracks, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('loaded devices') scoped to one exact ordinary, Return, or Main track. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracks or get_device_hierarchy, which operate at different scope or granularity.
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?
The description implies the use case: call this when you need the devices loaded on a specific track. The schema provides provenance for trackId via list_tracks, get_set_mixer, or master, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.