Retrieve current and available input/output routings for an Ableton Live track to inspect signal flow and choose correct routing when mixing or recording.
Current and available input/output routings of a track (by display name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | track | |
| track_index | Yes |
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 full behavioral burden. It implies a read (nothing about mutation, permissions, defaults, or behavior for non-'track' kinds) and only hints at output shape via '(by display name)'. That single phrase is the only extra behavioral context beyond the name.
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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Appropriate size, though it is sized for a much simpler tool than the schema implies.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: it does not explain the kind enum, index semantics, or the return shape for a tool whose output is a routing list.
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 never mentions the 'kind' parameter (track/return/master) or how track_index is interpreted, leaving both parameters unexplained beyond the generic word 'track'.
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-resource ('routings of a track') and narrows scope to current and available input/output routings. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling set_routing, which an agent would have to infer is the write counterpart.
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 statement of when to use this versus set_routing or get_track_info, and no prerequisites. The agent gets no routing guidance beyond the description of what is fetched.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.