Add a MIDI, audio, or return track to an Ableton Live set, with an option to append it at the end or insert it at a specific index.
Create a MIDI, audio or return track. index=-1 appends at the end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | No | midi | |
| index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that index=-1 appends at the end, omitting side effects, permissions, return values, and behavior for invalid indices or name defaults. This is thin for a mutation 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a relevant default caveat. No wasted words.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits return information, error conditions, and how the new track interacts with existing tracks.
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 compensate. It does clarify type values (midi/audio/return) and the index=-1 default behavior, but leaves name entirely unexplained. Partial compensation warrants a mid-range score.
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?
Clearly states a specific verb and resource: create a track of three possible types. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like duplicate_track or create_scene, but the resource 'track' is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The index=-1 note is a usage hint but not a condition for choosing this tool over alternatives such as duplicate_track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.