ableton-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_tracks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve stable Ableton track identities, mixer state, and existing group hierarchy to inspect your Live set's organization and routing.

Instructions

List stable Ableton track identities, mixer state, and existing group hierarchy.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1Oct 23, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "stateVersion": {
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "tracks": {
+        "items": {
+          "properties": {
+            "armed": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            },
+            "groupTrackId": {
+              "anyOf": [
+                {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                {
+                  "type": "null"
+                }
+              ]
+            },
+            "id": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "isGroup": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            },
+            "isGrouped": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            },
+            "mute": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            },
+            "name": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "pan": {
+              "type": "number"
+            },
+            "solo": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            },
+            "type": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "volume": {
+              "type": "number"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "id",
+            "name",
+            "type"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "stateVersion",
+      "tracks"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "error": {
+        "properties": {
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "not_executed"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "message",
+          "outcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[]
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful claim that identities are 'stable' and that mixer state and group hierarchy are included, but says nothing about ordering, completeness (return/master tracks?), or cost of the call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves a lot unstated rather than optimizing information density.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a no-argument read-only list tool with an output schema documenting the return shape, the description covers what is returned. The remaining gap is scope (whether return tracks, master, or hidden tracks are included), which is minor given the output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 (List) and resource (Ableton track identities) and names the payload elements: stable identities, mixer state, and group hierarchy. It does not name the adjacent readers it overlaps with (get_track_mixer, get_track_grouping_status, list_devices), so an agent can't fully rule out siblings from this sentence alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use language, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With dozens of overlapping track-related siblings in this server, the absence of routing guidance forces the agent to infer that this is the enumeration entry point.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server