Retrieve browser items under a specified category path, such as instruments/Simpler, to browse available devices, presets, or samples in Ableton Live.
Get browser items at a given category path (e.g. "instruments/Simpler").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path in browser tree e.g. "instruments/Simpler" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'Get' but never states the return shape, whether results are paginated, or how it differs behaviorally from get_browser_tree. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant gaps.
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 with an inline example and zero waste. Efficient and easy to parse, though it could carry one more clause of routing guidance without becoming bloated.
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-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should clarify what 'browser items' actually returns and how it relates to get_browser_tree. The distinction from the sibling tree tool is left entirely unaddressed.
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 100% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented with the same example in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get browser items') scoped by a category path, and the example ('instruments/Simpler') makes the domain concrete. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_browser_tree, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to call.
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?
Usage is only implied: the path example hints you drill into a category. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a valid tree path), and no mention of the related get_browser_tree or load_browser_item tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.