Deletes an Ableton Live 12 track by its zero-based index. Use it to remove unwanted tracks programmatically through the MCP server.
Deletes a track in Ableton Live 12 by its zero-based index (Song.delete_track).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | Zero-based index of the track to delete. |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool deletes a track, but does not mention irreversibility, undo behavior, what happens to contained clips/devices, or whether deleting the last track is allowed. For a destructive mutation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It identifies the action, resource, parameter, and underlying LOM call efficiently.
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 fully described parameter and a simple operation, the description is enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should disclose more about consequences and safety, so completeness is only adequate.
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 schema already documents track_index as a zero-based index. The description repeats the zero-based index requirement but adds no format, range, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Deletes a track in Ableton Live 12." It also identifies the operation as Song.delete_track and mentions the needed zero-based index, making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as track_create or track_duplicate, 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?
The description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus siblings like live12_track_create, live12_track_duplicate, or live12_clip_delete. There is no warning about deletion being destructive or about when deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.