Mute or unmute a specific Ableton Live track using its 0-indexed position and a boolean flag. Control track audio state during session editing or playback.
Mute or unmute a track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mute | Yes | True to mute, false to unmute | |
| track_index | Yes | 0-indexed track position |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about error handling for an out-of-range track_index, idempotency, or whether the change persists or is live-only. It does at least make clear this is a mutation, but that is the bare minimum.
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 sentence that front-loads the action with zero filler. For a two-parameter toggle there is no wasted verbiage.
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, fully-documented two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is just barely sufficient. It is missing failure-mode and session-context information that an agent would need to invoke it confidently, but the low complexity keeps the gap small.
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% — both track_index ('0-indexed track position') and mute ('True to mute, false to unmute') are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?
The description gives a specific verb pair (mute/unmute) and a clear resource (track), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from set_track_solo, set_track_arm, and set_track_name. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the action 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the adjacent siblings (set_track_solo, set_track_arm) or any prerequisites such as needing an active session. The one-line description leaves all usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.