Ableton MCP Extended

Does 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 describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'browser items' include (e.g., files, folders, types). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details parameters in a clear, bullet-point format. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no redundant or vague information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or item types, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'path' by explaining its format ('category/folder/subfolder') and specifying that 'category is one of the available browser categories in Ableton.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only lists 'path' as a string without details), this compensates well, providing essential semantics not in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_browser_tree' by focusing on items at a specific path rather than the entire tree structure. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 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 implies usage by specifying the path format and mentioning 'Ableton's browser,' which suggests context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_browser_tree' or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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