List the contents of an Ableton Live browser folder, such as instruments, drums, or audio_effects/Delay & Loop, to find devices and samples by category.
List the contents of a browser folder, e.g. 'instruments', 'drums', 'audio_effects/Delay & Loop', 'instruments/Drift'. First segment is the category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | instruments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List the contents' strongly implies a non-destructive read and it discloses the path grammar ('First segment is the category'), but it says nothing about what 'contents' are returned (folders vs devices) or any rate behavior. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource, followed only by examples that earn their place. 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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential path format the agent needs to invoke it. It stops just short of describing the return contents, which would fully close the loop given there is no output schema.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the multiple example paths ('audio_effects/Delay & Loop', 'instruments/Drift') and the 'First segment is the category' rule convey hierarchy and accepted syntax beyond the bare 'Path' string typing.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List the contents of a browser folder') and reinforces scope with concrete example paths. It is clearly a browsing/listing operation distinguishable in spirit from search_browser and load_device, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from siblings.
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?
It gives path value examples but no guidance on when to use browse versus search_browser, load_device, or device_property, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the browsing-then-loading workflow entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.