Skip to main content
Glama

list_tracks

Lists all vocal tracks in a Synthesizer V AI project to manage and edit vocal arrangements for music production.

Instructions

List all tracks in the current project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:253-260 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_tracks' tool in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, including its name, description, and empty input schema.
    {
      name: "list_tracks",
      description: "List all tracks in the current project",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
        required: []
      }
  • The handler function for the 'list_tracks' tool within the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement. It executes the command via executeCommand and returns the tracks data as a JSON string.
    case "list_tracks": {
      const tracks = await executeCommand("list_tracks");
    
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify(tracks, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Helper function executeCommand used by the list_tracks handler to send the 'list_tracks' action to the Synthesizer V Studio Lua script via file communication and retrieve the response.
    async function executeCommand(action: string, params: any = {}): Promise<any> {
      const command = {
        action,
        ...params
      };
    
      await writeCommand(command);
      return await readResponse();
    }
  • Type definition for Track, used in handling responses from list_tracks.
    interface Track {
      id: number;
      name: string;
      noteCount: number;
      notes?: Note[];
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('list all tracks') but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of objects with IDs/names), or any limitations (e.g., pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tracks' are in this context, what data is returned (e.g., track names, IDs, metadata), or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured data support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter explanations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'tracks', specifying the scope as 'in the current project'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_track' (creation) and 'get_track_notes' (specific notes retrieval), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_project_info' which might also provide track-related information. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ocadaruma/mcp-svstudio'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server