Locate Ableton Live tracks by case-insensitive name substring and return their current path IDs for further automation.
Find tracks by case-insensitive name substring and return fresh path-ids.
Side effects: none.
Example: live_find_track("bass") resolves matching tracks.
Edge cases: no match is a valid empty result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits: 'Side effects: none', a resolvable return ('fresh path-ids'), and the empty-match edge case. It stops short of return shape detail, but for a read-only lookup this is solid behavioral disclosure.
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, edge case. Each line carries distinct information with no padding, though the labelled 'Example'/'Edge cases' structure is slightly boilerplate.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description covers purpose, safety, result type, and the empty-result case. It is close to complete; only the meaning of 'path-id' is assumed rather than explained.
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%, so the description must define the sole parameter, and it does: 'query' is a case-insensitive name substring, reinforced by the example. That compensates well for the undocumented schema field.
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 ('Find') and resource ('tracks') plus the exact matching mechanism ('case-insensitive name substring') and the return value ('fresh path-ids'). This is distinguishable from sibling list/state readers like get_track_list and get_track_state without opening a schema.
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 name-substring framing implies when the tool applies, and the example illustrates a call, but it never names an alternative (e.g., get_track_list for enumerating all tracks) or states when-not to use it. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.