Removes an audio or MIDI device from a track, return, or master chain by specifying track and device index. Use it to clean up unwanted plugins or instruments in a Live set.
Remove a device from a track's chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | track | |
| track_index | Yes | ||
| device_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but supplies almost none of it: it omits that deletion is destructive/irreversible, whether the underlying device is unloaded or merely detached, and whether indices shift after removal. 'Remove' implies mutation but nothing about side effects or error conditions is disclosed.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by careful compression.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent cannot determine indexing conventions, the meaning of 'kind', or what happens to the surrounding chain after deletion.
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 should compensate, yet it explains none of the three parameters. Worse, 'a track's chain' implies a track-only scope while the 'kind' enum also permits 'return' and 'master', leaving that parameter's meaning and the index base for track_index/device_index undocumented.
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 (Remove) and resource (a device from a track's chain), so an agent can tell it apart from create/load devices. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from near-siblings like delete_track, move_device, or delete_clip beyond the noun, and the destination scope ('chain') is stated without explaining the track/return/master dimension.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as move_device or delete_track. The agent must infer that this is the removal counterpart to load_device purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.