max4.live
Server Details
Natural-language search over 8,900+ Max for Live devices for Ableton Live. Fuzzy full-text plus type, license, popularity and date filters.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_devices for querying, list_filters for filter metadata, and get_device for detailed info on a specific device. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_devices, list_filters, get_device. No mixing of conventions.
Three tools is perfectly scoped for a device search and retrieval API. Each tool is necessary and none are superfluous.
Covers core operations: search with filters, filter options, and detail retrieval. Minor gap: no explicit pagination control in search_devices, but fuzzy search mitigates this.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_deviceAInspect
Get full details for one device by its numeric id (from search_devices results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device id. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only indicates read operation without disclosing additional behavioral traits like response structure or potential side effects.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words, frontloading core purpose and source of id.
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 retrieve-by-ID tool with no output schema, description fully covers necessary context: what it does and where input comes from.
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 describes 'id' as integer device id; description adds valuable context that id originates from search_devices results, enhancing parameter understanding.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'full details for one device,' distinguishes from sibling 'search_devices' by specifying id origin from its results.
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?
Implicitly indicates use after search_devices to retrieve full details for a specific device, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance for list_filters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_filtersAInspect
List the valid values for the type, license and sort filters of search_devices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only states action (list values) without mentioning read-only nature, permissions, or output characteristics.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff. Every word carries meaning.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential info but lacks usage context and behavioral details.
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?
No parameters, baseline 4. Description adds value by naming the specific filters (type, license, sort), which the empty schema does not convey.
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?
Clearly states it lists valid values for three specific filters (type, license, sort) of search_devices. Differentiates from sibling tools: search_devices performs searches, get_device retrieves a specific device, while this tool provides filter metadata.
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?
Implies usage context (discovering filter options before search_devices) but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_devicesAInspect
Search ~8,900 Max for Live devices for Ableton Live. Fuzzy full-text match (title/author/description, identical to max4.live) plus filters. Compose for natural language, e.g. "popular free MIDI devices from the last 2 weeks" -> type=[MIDI Effect,MIDI Generator,MIDI Transformation], license=[free], sort=downloads, added_after=.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Default relevance (Fuse ranking with a query, else newest). | |
| type | No | Device types to include. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20). | |
| query | No | Free-text fuzzy search (name, author, keyword). Omit to browse by filters only. | |
| license | No | License buckets. free=freeware, commercial=paid, cc=any Creative Commons. For 'free to use' pass [free, cc]. | |
| added_after | No | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Only devices added on/after this date. | |
| min_downloads | No | Minimum download count. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses fuzzy matching, default sort behavior, and filter capabilities. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it lacks details on safety (e.g., read-only nature) but is adequate for a search tool.
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?
Two sentences: first states main function, second provides a concrete example. No extraneous information, front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Covers search scope, filter options, and sorting defaults. Lacks explicit output description or pagination details, but given 7 parameters and no output schema, it provides sufficient context for effective use.
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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds value by explaining how to compose natural language queries into filters and default sort logic, enhancing understanding beyond schema details.
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?
Description clearly states it searches Max for Live devices with fuzzy matching and filters, specifying the resource and actions. It distinguishes from siblings get_device and list_filters by its search-focus.
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?
Provides an example of composing natural language queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!