Read metadata for a single Ableton Session clip slot, returning loop, type, color, and signature fields; empty slots report has_clip=false instead of an error.
Read stable metadata for one Session clip slot.
Side effects: none.
Example: get_clip_info(0, 1) returns loop, type, color, and signature fields.
Edge cases: empty slots return has_clip=false instead of an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clip_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly declares "Side effects: none", lists the returned fields (loop, type, color, signature), and discloses the empty-slot behavior of returning has_clip=false rather than erroring. It omits permission requirements and the shape/exact types of the return object, but the core behavioral profile is clear.
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?
Four tight lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then labeled Side effects / Example / Edge cases. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
There is no output schema or annotation, so the description is the sole source of truth and does cover the safety profile, sample return fields, and the empty-slot edge case. It would be stronger if it named the index semantics and a representative return structure, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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 0% — neither parameter has a description — so the description must compensate. The example `get_clip_info(0, 1)` implies positional order but never states which argument is track_index vs clip_index, nor what valid ranges or addressing scheme apply. This leaves a real gap for a two-parameter lookup.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Read stable metadata for one Session clip slot") and the word "stable" hints at a distinction from mutable/derived views. However, it does not name sibling alternatives like get_clip_summary, get_clip_notes, or get_clip_automation, so the agent must infer which clip reader to pick.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent gathers that this is the tool for slot-level metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the many sibling clip tools, though the edge-case note (empty slots return has_clip=false) usefully tells the agent this call is safe to probe blind.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.