Duplicate a regular track with its devices, clips, and mixer settings; the copy is placed directly after and selected. Optionally assign a name.
Duplicate a regular track with its devices, clips and mixer settings; the copy goes right after it and is selected. Optionally name the copy. Live cannot duplicate return or master tracks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| track | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: where the copy lands (right after the original), that it becomes selected, and the return/master track exclusion. It stops short of saying what happens on name collision or whether the original is untouched.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the constraint. No filler; every clause carries information an agent can act on.
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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects (selected, adjacent placement), and the key restriction. It is only incomplete on the `track` identifier format, which matters given 0% schema coverage.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters. It covers naming ("Optionally name the copy") but leaves `track` ambiguous — the anyOf integer|string allows index or name and the description never says which form is accepted.
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+resource ("Duplicate a regular track") with explicit scope: devices, clips, and mixer settings are included in the copy. Naming "regular track" plus the note that return/master tracks cannot be duplicated distinguishes it clearly from siblings like duplicate_clip, duplicate_scene, and duplicate_device.
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?
States a hard precondition (Live cannot duplicate return or master tracks), which prevents a whole class of failed calls, and describes the resulting placement/selection. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent between this and duplicate_scene/duplicate_clip for adjacent tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.