Retrieves detailed information for a specific track, including mixer settings, clips, and indexed device list. Use it to inspect track contents before editing or mixing.
Detailed info for one track (mixer, clips, device list with indexes).
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the expected response contents (mixer, clips, device list with indexes), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not describe error behavior for invalid indexes or whether it requires the track to already exist.
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 that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and the returned payload. Nothing is wasted, though there's little content to structure.
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 simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, listing the returned fields is helpful, but the two undocumented parameters (especially the kind selector) leave the definition short of complete.
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 not: track_index and the kind enum (track/return/master) are unexplained. Notably, kind changes what the index refers to, yet the description speaks only of "one track", leaving a meaningful semantic gap.
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 ("Detailed info for one track") and enumerates the payload (mixer, clips, device list with indexes), which helps distinguish it from generic readers like get_session_info or get_routing. It lacks any naming of the closest alternatives, but the intent is clear.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent must infer that this is a read of a single track versus get_session_info, get_routing, or the get_* clip tools, with no stated conditions to guide the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.