Inspect a track's current and available audio/MIDI input and output routing types and channels in Ableton Live 12 to verify signal flow before making routing changes.
Inspects current and available input and output audio/MIDI routing types and channels for a track in Ableton Live 12.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | Zero-based track index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'inspects' plus 'current and available' does communicate that this is a non-mutating read that also enumerates the selectable option set, which is genuinely useful context. However, it says nothing about the shape of the returned routing data, error behavior for invalid track indices, or permission/liveness requirements.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope and that both current and available routing options are returned. A brief hint at the return structure (per input/output slot) would close the remaining gap.
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 track_index parameter is already documented as zero-based in the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. The phrase 'for a track' only loosely restates the parameter's purpose.
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 (inspects) and resource (input/output audio/MIDI routing types and channels) scoped to a track, which is precise and readily separable from live12_routing_set by the get/set verb pair. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling as its counterpart, so it lands just below the top score.
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 statement or named alternative; the agent must infer that this is the discovery step before live12_routing_set. Usage is implied by 'current and available' but never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.