Lists all regular, return, and master tracks in an Ableton Live Set with session path-ids, so you can inspect track structure and target tracks for automation.
List regular, return, and master tracks with session path-ids.
Side effects: none.
Example: get_track_list() returns [{"id": "track:0", ...}].
Edge cases: path-ids must be refreshed after structural track changes.
| 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, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly declares 'Side effects: none' and warns that path-ids go stale after structural track changes, a real behavioral caveat. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or completeness of the returned list.
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, front-loaded lines: purpose first, then side effects, example, and edge case. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies a return-shape example, a side-effect statement, and a staleness caveat, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only return ordering/field detail is left to inference.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter claims that could mislead.
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 ('List') and resource ('tracks'), and narrows the scope to regular, return, and master tracks plus the session path-ids it returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. get_track_state, get_session_overview), 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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of session path-ids and the note that they must be refreshed after structural track changes hints at when the call is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance against siblings like get_track_state or get_session_overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.