PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

playlist_list_tracks

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every FL Studio Playlist track with name, color, and mute/solo/selection status. Read-only; use one-based indices with playlist_set_track for edits.

Instructions

List every Playlist track with its name, color, and mute/solo/selection.

Read-only. Playlist track indices are one-based. Use them with
playlist_set_track. Clips on the Playlist are not readable through FL's
scripting API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`tracks`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`observed_at`	Yes
`schema_version`	No	1.0
`total_track_count`	Yes
`observation_atomic`	No
`project_dirty_flag`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv11.0.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: indices are one-based, and Playlist clips are not accessible through the API — useful context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it returns, safety, then index semantics and limitation. No filler, every sentence carries distinct information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values; it instead supplies the index convention and the API limitation, which are exactly the gaps an agent would otherwise hit.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description still adds index semantics (one-based) that matter for consuming the output, going slightly beyond an empty schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Playlist tracks) and enumerates the returned fields (name, color, mute/solo/selection), which distinguishes it from siblings like playlist_get_selection and mixer_list_tracks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent to playlist_set_track for the returned indices and states a hard limitation (clips are not readable via the scripting API). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use versus the adjacent playlist_get_selection, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server