List Session View scenes and check whether each is empty or contains clips. Use to audit scene organization in Ableton Live.
List Session View scenes and whether each scene is empty.
Side effects: none.
Example: get_scenes() returns scene indexes and names.
Edge cases: a scene is non-empty when any contained slot has a clip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Side effects: none' explicitly declares the read-only profile, and the edge-case sentence defines exactly what non-empty means ('any contained slot has a clip'). It stops short of stating ordering, count, or whether empty scenes are still returned, which would round out the behavior.
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 short, labeled sentences: purpose first, then side effects, then an example, then edge cases. Nothing is redundant and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description reasonably steps in by describing the return content (scene indexes and names) and the emptiness semantics. It is nearly complete for a zero-argument read tool, missing only ordering and how many scenes are returned.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is trivially empty and the description correctly does not invent parameter semantics; there is nothing further needed here.
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 ('List Session View scenes') plus the extra output dimension (emptiness), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling get_scene_state, leaving the boundary between 'list all scenes' and 'scene detail' to inference.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the very relevant sibling get_scene_state is never mentioned as the alternative for per-scene detail. Usage is only implicit from the tool name, which the description neither reinforces nor qualifies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.