Ableton Copilot
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, with clear separation between tracks, clips, devices, browser, and arrangement. Minor ambiguity exists between create_clip (MIDI) and create_audio_clip, as well as between get_clip_notes and get_arrangement_clip_notes, but descriptions and parameter scopes help.
Naming Consistency4/5Tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb-first pattern (get_, set_, create_, delete_, etc.). Deviations include some phrasal names like switch_to_arrangement_view and duplicate_to_arrangement, and create_clip is not as specific as create_midi_clip, which breaks symmetry with create_audio_clip.
Tool Count2/5At 52 tools, this server is heavily over-scoped compared to typical MCP servers, even for a broad DAW control domain. Many granular mixer tools (set_track_volume, set_track_pan, set_track_mute, etc.) could be combined, and the sheer volume increases cognitive load.
Completeness3/5The tool surface covers core workflows: track/clip lifecycle, device manipulation, browser access, arrangement navigation, and music generation. However, there are notable gaps such as no direct editing of arrangement MIDI clips, no track duplication, no get_current_time, and no set_selected, which agents may need to work around.
Average 3.9/5 across 52 of 52 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe effects like validation, error handling, whether the track must exist, or what the operation returns. The description merely states the intended action without revealing any behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is redundant with the schema, but it is compact and does provide some additional context, especially for the telemetry parameter. No word is wasted, but the main sentence could be more substantive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple action, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks important context: when to use this versus set_clip_name, whether the track index is 0-based, what happens on invalid index, and whether the operation is reversible. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the burden, which the description does not meet.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by listing parameter purposes. It clarifies 'track_index' as the track to rename, 'name' as the new name, and notably explains 'user_prompt' is for telemetry. However, these explanations are largely obvious from the parameter names and add only modest value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the name of a track' directly restates the tool name, making it a tautology. It does not add specific detail about scope, limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools like set_clip_name. The core action is clear, but it offers no differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling context shows many setter tools, but the description gives no comparative direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start playing a clip' and does not disclose side effects like whether the clip loops, whether transport is started, or whether it stops other clips. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a one-sentence purpose and a clean parameter list. Every line contributes useful information without redundancy, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool but the lack of annotations and output schema increases the need for context. Missing details about whether 'firing' a clip starts transport or how it interacts with start_playback/stop_clip leaves the agent without enough information to use it correctly in all situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for each parameter, which is essential given 0% schema coverage. However, it doesn't clarify whether indices are zero-based or one-based, nor explain the concept of a 'clip slot' in depth. The user_prompt telemetry explanation is helpful but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Start playing a clip' which clearly identifies the action and resource. The parameter names (track_index, clip_index) distinguish it from global playback tools like start_playback, though the description doesn't explicitly call out this differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_playback or stop_clip. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the clip needing to exist, or whether this tool alone starts audio playback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, what happens if nothing is selected, or any return format. The description is purely functional and lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a minimal parameter explanation. No wasted words, and the structure clearly separates purpose from parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not describe the return value structure or behavior in edge cases (e.g., nothing selected). It is minimally adequate for a simple getter but leaves out details an agent might need to use the result effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only lists user_prompt with type and default, but the description adds: 'The original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry).' This meaningfully clarifies that the parameter is for telemetry rather than functional use, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the track, scene, and device currently selected in the Live UI.' This provides a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'currently selected' scope differentiates it from sibling tools like get_track_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternatives, no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, without helping the agent decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the user_prompt parameter is used for telemetry, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does not mention the return format, potential side effects, or access requirements beyond the telemetry note.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single purpose sentence and a bullet list for parameters. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the tool's behavior and return value. It only says 'detailed information' without enumerating what that includes, and omits usage context, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for the parameter, but the tool description explicitly explains user_prompt as the original user prompt for telemetry. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail, providing clear meaning for the only parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches detailed information about the current Ableton session, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_project_key or get_track_info, and the name largely paraphrases the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or examples are provided. The description merely states what it does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and URI requirement; it does not mention side effects, whether existing devices are replaced, error conditions, or what response is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a tight parameter list. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely mutates a project and has no annotations or output schema, the description omits behavioral details, return values, and caveats about URI validity or track requirements. It provides enough to attempt a call but not enough to fully anticipate outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining all three parameters with short explanations, including a URI example and the telemetry purpose of user_prompt. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though not deeply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Load'), specific resource ('instrument or effect'), target ('onto a track'), and method ('using its URI'). It is not as explicit as it could be about distinguishing from sibling tool load_drum_kit, but the scope is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: you need a URI to load an instrument or effect. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over load_drum_kit, search_browser_items, or other sibling tools, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behaviors like side effects, range limits, or session requirements. It merely restates the action ('Set the tempo') without any further detail, which is essentially a tautology and fails to inform the agent of anything 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: a single sentence identifying the action followed by a two-line parameter list. There is no redundant or vague wording—every sentence adds direct value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers the essential facts (what is changed and how the parameters map). However, it omits any mention of return values, validation ranges, or whether the session must be running, leaving some gaps in the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters: 'tempo' is explicitly in BPM, and 'user_prompt' is identified as telemetry. This adds meaningful context that is absent from the input schema (which only provides types and defaults), compensating well for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'tempo of the Ableton session', making its function unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools since no other tool in the list deals with tempo setting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about how it fits into a workflow. It simply states the action without explaining when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'apply' without indicating whether existing device settings are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or if any specific conditions need to be met. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean parameter list. Every piece of information earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the clear parameter descriptions, the tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not mention return values, error conditions, or preconditions (e.g., device type or preset existence). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter meaningfully. It clarifies that track_index and device_index identify the target device, preset names come from music_theory.SOUND_PRESETS with examples, and user_prompt is for telemetry. This adds clear value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply a starter sound design patch to a device by preset name.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_instrument_or_effect or set_device_parameter, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter list provides some context but does not mention when this should be chosen over other device-related tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'get detailed information' without specifying what information is returned, error behavior, side effects, or read-only status. The telemetry parameter is mentioned but that is not a behavioral trait of the tool itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single purpose sentence followed by a concise parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and the description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, which is critical for an agent to know what results to expect. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns complex track data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema has 0% description coverage, the description explains both parameters: track_index as the index of the track and user_prompt as telemetry. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though track_index could be more explicit about indexing convention.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: getting detailed information about a specific track in Ableton. The verb 'Get' and resource 'track information' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_track_hierarchy and get_session_info by focusing on an individual track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context such as needing a track_index first. It offers no exclusions or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not state whether an existing clip in the slot will be overwritten, what happens if the track or slot is invalid, or what the return value is. The only behavioral hint is 'create a new MIDI clip,' which is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose sentence, followed by a clear parameter list. Each line earns its place by adding meaning beyond the schema. It is not overly verbose, though it could omit the parameter list if the schema already had descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to disclose key behaviors such as overwrite semantics, required preconditions, or error handling. The agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's effects or outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains all four parameters, including the default for length ('4.0 beats') and the telemetry purpose of user_prompt. This adds value beyond the names, though track_index and clip_index are relatively self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states precisely 'Create a new MIDI clip in the specified track and clip slot,' which conveys the exact action and target resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_audio_clip and create_midi_track by specifying 'MIDI' and 'clip slot.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—when you need to create a new empty MIDI clip—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like add_notes_to_clip or generate_chord_progression. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete' without disclosing irreversibility, side effects, permission requirements, or response behavior, leaving the destructive nature under-specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a concise parameter list. Every element serves a purpose and is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic operation and all parameters, but omits critical invocation details like whether track_index and device_index are zero-based, and does not mention any return or error behavior. This leaves meaningful ambiguity for a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description enumerates all three parameters with brief semantic explanations, including the telemetry role of user_prompt. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare titles, though index base/constraints are not specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a device (instrument or effect) from a track. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_track and delete_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_track or delete_clip, and no preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a constraint (length > 0) and the telemetry purpose of user_prompt, but does not describe side effects, invalid-input behavior, whether the loop must be enabled, or what happens to existing loop settings. For a setter tool, this is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact with a single purpose sentence and a clear bullet list. It repeats the parameter names already in the schema, but the added descriptions are worth it. No fluff; well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with no output schema, the description covers the action and parameters adequately. However, it omits how this interacts with looping enabling (sibling enable_arrangement_loop) and whether the loop is automatically activated. This is a notable gap for an agent deciding the full sequence of actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by providing clear, unit-aware meanings: 'start' is in beats from arrangement start, 'length' is in beats with a positivity constraint, and 'user_prompt' is explained as telemetry. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('arrangement loop region'), with a specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like enable_arrangement_loop (which toggles looping) and set_arrangement_time (which positions playback).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as enabling the loop via enable_arrangement_loop. The description focuses only on parameters, leaving the agent to infer the relationship with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, idle behavior (e.g., what happens if the clip is not playing), or the scope (does it affect other clips? does it reset clip position?). This is a minimal disclosure for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the action is stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple clip-stopping tool, the action and parameters are covered. However, the absence of usage guidelines and behavioral specifics leaves it incomplete in a tool ecosystem where stop_playback and fire_clip exist as alternatives. The description does not clarify the distinction from these siblings, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: track_index, clip_index, and user_prompt. It clarifies the role of each parameter, including the telemetry purpose of user_prompt. However, it lacks range constraints, requiredness hints, or formatting details, so it does not fully compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Stop playing a clip.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_playback (which stops global playback) and fire_clip (which starts a clip). The action is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this stops a specific clip rather than global playback, nor does it reference any related sibling tools. The description leaves usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it fails to disclose post-conditions, selection behavior, or error handling. The only behavioral detail is the 'index' parameter's -1 meaning, which is parameter semantics rather than a general behavioral trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise, well-structured parts: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list. It contains no filler and is easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the purpose and parameters are covered, the description lacks any mention of side effects, return values, or behavior in relation to other track operations (e.g., selection or arrangement). For a simple creation tool, it is adequate but leaves room for additional context that would help an agent fully understand the tool's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides zero descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: 'index' with its insertion position semantics (including -1 for end of list) and 'user_prompt' for telemetry. This exceeds the schema's information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (create) and resource (audio track), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'create_midi_track'. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives like 'create_midi_track' or what conditions should prompt its use. The description only states the action and parameters, offering no contextual or exclusionary information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention irreversibility, side effects, or any safety information beyond the basic 'delete' action, leaving the destructive nature implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with a clear action sentence, followed by a neat parameter list. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the function and parameters. However, a brief note on irreversibility or behavioral effects would improve completeness given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% schema coverage), but the description provides brief explanations for track_index, clip_index, and user_prompt, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete the clip in a track's clip slot.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_track and create_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (enable/disable) but does not explain what happens when toggled, whether it affects playback, or if there are side effects. This is a simple toggle, but the description lacks detail about the observable behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one line + parameter breakdown) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple toggle tool, the description covers the parameters and core action. However, it does not describe the return value or any side effects, and with no output schema or annotations, this information is missing. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool that mutates state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains both parameters: 'enabled' (True to enable, False to disable) and 'user_prompt' (original prompt for telemetry). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type/default fields, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Enable or disable the arrangement loop.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_arrangement_time' or 'set_loop_region' by focusing on the loop toggle action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or cases where a different tool (e.g., 'set_loop_region') would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Start playing' without noting side effects, prerequisites, or whether it resumes from playback position. This is a straightforward action, but the lack of any behavioral detail is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: one action sentence plus a parameter explanation, both front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information or verbose phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite its brevity, the description covers the essential purpose and the only parameter, making it adequate for a simple transport control with no output schema. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral nuances, but the tool's low complexity means the description is close to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains the user_prompt parameter as 'the original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry)', adding meaning beyond the schema's title and default. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though the parameter is trivial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Start playing' with the resource 'the Ableton session', making it distinct from siblings like stop_playback (which stops transport) and fire_clip (which launches a specific clip). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use fire_clip for individual clips or stop_playback for stopping. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without contextual cues for selecting this over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates 'get' (already in the name) and provides parameter formatting. It does not mention read-only nature, return format, error behavior, or any 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is compact and every sentence earns its place without redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a relatively simple getter but leaves gaps: there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned item list looks like or how invalid paths are handled. It also does not clarify how this differs from sibling browsing tools beyond the phrase 'specific path'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'path' gets a format explanation, and 'user_prompt' is labeled as telemetry. This adds real semantic value beyond the raw schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('browser items') with a clear scope ('at a specific path'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_browser_tree (whole tree) and search_browser_items (query-based search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: the description suggests this tool is for retrieving browser items when you have a known path, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of get_browser_tree or search_browser_items. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the basic load operation and does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing device), prerequisites (e.g., whether the track must already exist), or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured: a single sentence explaining the overall purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. No unnecessary words or repetition—every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the immediate action but omits important context such as whether the track must pre-exist, what happens to the existing rack, and how this relates to sibling tools like generate_drum_pattern or load_instrument_or_effect. The core action is described, but the surrounding operational context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear explanations for all four parameters, including examples for rack_uri and kit_path. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, helping the agent understand expected values and purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: loading a drum rack and then a specific drum kit into it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_instrument_or_effect, which handles general instruments/effects. The verb+resource+scope is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description—use this when you need to load a drum kit—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., load_instrument_or_effect) or any exclusions. No direct comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and parameter meanings, but does not mention return values, side effects, or whether the mute state is per-session or persistent. This is a minimal description that reveals no behavior beyond the direct action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, the remaining three define parameters. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mute/unmute tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and all parameters. However, it omits any mention of return behavior or when to prefer this over related mute/solo tools, leaving a minor completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains each parameter, including track_index, muted (with default and semantics), and user_prompt (noting telemetry purpose). This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions (0% coverage) and adds meaning beyond the bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific verb-resource relationship: 'Mute or unmute a track.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_track_name, set_track_volume, or set_track_pan by spelling out the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_track_solo or set_track_volume. The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds little behavioral detail. It merely states the action and enumerates parameters. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing pan, affecting automation), validation constraints, required permissions, or error conditions. This leaves a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could arguably be moved to the schema. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers purpose and key parameter semantics. It is missing only minor details like whether track_index is zero-based and any interaction with playback or automation. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema only lists types, the description enriches each parameter: track_index is defined as 'the index of the track,' pan is given a meaningful range (-1.0 to 1.0 with 0.0 center), and user_prompt is explained as telemetry. This significantly helps the agent use the tool correctly, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a direct, specific action: 'Set a track's mixer pan.' This clearly names the resource (track) and the property (pan), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_mute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by its name and action, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The parameter list gives some context (e.g., pan range), but there is no statement like 'use this to balance a track in the stereo field.' Thus, usage is mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect (stopping session playback) but does not disclose edge cases, such as behavior when playback is already stopped, or any side effects. The action is clear, but additional context would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the action and one for the parameter. Both sentences are necessary and directly serve the tool's function, with no wasted or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core action and the parameter's purpose. It lacks usage alternatives and edge-case behavior, which are addressed in other dimensions, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only lists user_prompt with a title and default, providing no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is 'the original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry)', which clarifies its purpose and why it has a default empty value. This adds meaningful information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool stops playing the Ableton session, using a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('the Ableton session'). This also distinguishes it from siblings like stop_clip (which stops an individual clip) and start_playback (the opposite action).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternatives. The description does not mention related tools such as start_playback or stop_clip, nor does it provide any context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the snap_to_scale behavior and key override, but it does not disclose whether notes are merged with existing notes, what happens if the clip does not exist, or the return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean parameter list. While slightly verbose, every parameter entry provides necessary information that the schema lacks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and special behavior, but misses important operational context such as whether existing notes are preserved, error handling for missing clips, and return behavior. Given no annotations and no output schema, these gaps reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all six parameters, including the internal fields of 'notes' and the default behavior of 'key' and 'snap_to_scale'. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add MIDI notes to a clip' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like get_clip_notes and create_clip by focusing on adding notes to an existing clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the description and name imply the tool is for adding MIDI notes to an existing clip. This is sufficient for a straightforward operation, though it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent, but it does not disclose any potential behavioral traits such as whether the tree includes all categories or is limited in depth, or whether it requires an open project.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for the purpose plus a compact list of parameter explanations. Every part is useful, and it is front-loaded with the main function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two parameters, the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. It lacks an output schema and does not discuss return structure, but the 'hierarchical tree' phrase implies the nature of the response. It is reasonably complete for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides explicit explanations for both parameters, including the allowed values for category_type and the purpose of user_prompt. Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this fully compensates and adds meaningful semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_browser_items_at_path or search_browser_items that deal with items, not the category tree structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, without mentioning related tools (e.g., get_browser_items_at_path) or any exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (setting a name) and explains all parameters, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a succinct parameter list. Every line adds value, and the structure is easy to scan. There is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the action and all parameters with sufficient context. The absence of output schema is acceptable since none is needed for a void operation. Minor omissions like side effects are already covered under transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides detailed meaning for all four parameters, including track_index, clip_index, name, and user_prompt. This goes beyond the schema, which has zero property descriptions. The inline parameter explanations fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says "Set the name of a clip" with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_name by explicitly targeting clips. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the name and description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It is a straightforward setter, so the context is clear but not explicitly stated with exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the linear 0.0-1.0 range and that send_index matches the return track's index, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is reversible, what happens if a send does not exist, or if it overrides an existing level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence plus a bullet list. It is front-loaded with purpose and efficiently organizes parameter details. Some parameter descriptions are terse but sufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple setter nature, the description covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it vs sibling volume/pan setters, error behavior, and whether sends are created automatically. No output schema exists, so return value behavior is omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description defines all 4 parameters, including semantics not in the schema (which has only titles). For example, it explains linear range, index matching, and user_prompt's telemetry purpose. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Set a track's send level to a return track,' which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling setters like set_track_volume and set_track_pan by the parameter being controlled (send level).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the name and purpose, but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter meanings, without mentioning that this is a write operation, potential side effects, whether the change is undoable, or any permissions required. The verb 'Set' implies mutation, but no safety or side-effect context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise: a single-sentence summary front-loaded at the top, followed by a clean bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or promotional language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple property-setter tool with only three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core action and all parameters. It does not discuss edge cases like out-of-range track indices or color format validation, which could be helpful, but these are not critical for basic invocation. The frequent sibling tools for other track settings further contextualize the scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: track_index as the index of the track to recolor, color as a 24-bit RGB integer with concrete examples (0xFF0000 and decimal 16711680), and user_prompt for telemetry. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a track's color'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools that set other track properties like name, volume, or mute. The one-sentence summary leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when a track's color needs to be changed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., track must exist) or exclusion conditions. This is minimal viable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral side effects. It only restates the action without explaining whether soloing affects other tracks, if it is toggling or absolute, or any prerequisites (e.g., valid track index). This lacks the transparency expected for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and followed by a clear parameter list. Every line earns its place; there is no filler or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple track-setting tool, the description covers the essential purpose and all parameters. It does not mention return values or prerequisites, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only type/title information with no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains track_index, soloed (with default and meaning), and user_prompt (telemetry), covering all three parameters fully and adding meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Solo or unsolo a track' with a clear verb and resource, and the parameter list clarifies that it sets a boolean solo state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_volume, which control different track properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use whenever a track needs to be soloed or unsoloed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like muting. The context is clear from the name and parameters, but no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and parameters without mentioning side effects, reversibility, error handling, or any Live-specific behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter list with useful clarifications. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it omits behavioral details such as what happens if the track index is invalid, whether the change is immediate, and any prerequisites. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps keep it at a minimum viable level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It adds meaningful context for volume (linear range and unity point) and explains user_prompt's telemetry purpose, though track_index remains vague (no mention of indexing scheme).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action—'Set a track's mixer volume'—with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling track setters like set_track_pan, set_track_mute, and set_track_solo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for adjusting a track's volume, making its usage obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is sufficient for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the switch is non-destructive, whether it affects playback, or what the return value is. For a UI-affecting action, this leaves important context unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only essential information. It earns its place without unnecessary filler or duplication of schema data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple view-switch tool, the description covers the action and the telemetry parameter adequately. It lacks a note on return behavior (e.g., nothing returned or success flag), but given no output schema and low complexity, the description is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'user_prompt' is explained beyond the schema: it tells the agent it's the original prompt for telemetry purposes. This adds meaning that the schema (with no description) lacks, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('Ableton's main window to the Arrangement view'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings focused on arrangement editing or data retrieval. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need to change the main window to Arrangement view, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action (moving the playhead) without mentioning side effects, such as whether playback is stopped or whether the change is reversible. This lack of context could mislead an agent about safety and impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The parameter list is relevant and well-formatted, with no unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers the action and parameters, but it lacks behavioral context (e.g., effects on playback). Without an output schema or annotations, the description does not fully address all situational nuances an agent might need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining 'time' as beats from arrangement start with an example, and 'user_prompt' as telemetry input. This provides meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Move the arrangement playhead to a specific position.' This is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_playback or set_locator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool's usage context (positioning the playhead) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the action is unambiguous and no competing tool exists, so it remains clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the index insertion behavior and telemetry purpose, but it does not explain side effects like whether existing tracks are moved, if operation is undoable, or what the return value is. The basic mutation nature is implied by 'Create'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It lacks some runtime behavior context (e.g., whether the track is selected, if there are limits), but the information provided is sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides clear meaning for both parameters beyond the schema. It explains 'index' with the special -1 semantics and user_prompt as telemetry, which is not present in the input schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so this fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new MIDI track') and resource ('Ableton session'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_audio_track. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (you want a MIDI track), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over create_audio_track or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful traits: 'creates the clip if empty', 'If omitted, picks an idiomatic progression', and explains the rhythm variants. However, it fails to state whether writing into an existing clip overwrites or merges with existing notes, which is a critical behavioral detail for a mutation tool. This gap prevents a higher score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description starts with a one-sentence summary, then lists parameters in a scannable format. Each parameter has a terse, informative explanation with examples and defaults. The structure is front-loaded and eliminates fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly despite the large number of parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must cover a lot. It does cover all parameters, defaults, and even creation behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of any mention of return values or success/failure feedback, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is nearly complete for a complex generative tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is essential. It meticulously explains every parameter: track_index, bars, clip_index, arrangement_start, progression (with example), chord_size, octave (with MIDI convention), voicing (with enum values), key, rhythm (with definitions), and even user_prompt. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource action: 'Write a diatonic chord progression as MIDI notes into a clip.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_bassline or generate_drum_pattern by focusing on harmonic progressions. The term 'diatonic' adds further specificity, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_bassline or scaffold_track. It provides parameter-level guidance (e.g., 'Pass exactly one of clip_index / arrangement_start') but no high-level use case or exclusion criteria. The intended usage is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses the min/max range constraint for value and the need to use get_device_parameters for valid ranges, which is useful. However, it does not describe what happens on invalid input, whether the operation is reversible, or what the tool returns (if anything), leaving behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with an introductory statement, usage guidance, and a clear parameter list. It is slightly verbose due to some redundancy (e.g., parameter identification mentioned twice), but every sentence adds value given the lack of schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics and prerequisite discovery, but it does not explicitly state that at least one of parameter_name or parameter_index is required (since neither is marked required in the schema). It also does not mention the return value or error behavior. This leaves ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by providing a detailed parameter list for all 6 parameters, including semantics for track_index, device_index, value, parameter_name, parameter_index, and user_prompt. It explains the alternative between name and index and the value constraint, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the value of a parameter on a device (instrument or effect)' with specific examples like filter cutoff and resonance, and it distinguishes from sibling tools such as set_multiple_device_parameters by focusing on a single parameter. It also references get_device_parameters for discovery, which adds context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by instructing to use get_device_parameters first to discover parameter names, indices, and valid min/max range. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like set_multiple_device_parameters or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the create-or-rename behavior, which is key. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or prerequisites like being in arrangement view. This is adequate for a simple tool but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core behavior followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema and a small parameter set, the description covers the essential behavior and parameters. Minor gaps: no explicit prerequisites or return value info, but these are not critical for a straightforward locator operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains all parameters: time (beat position), name (with examples), and user_prompt (telemetry purpose), adding meaning well beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (create or rename) and resource (arrangement locator/marker at a beat position). The parenthetical 'if one already exists at that time' distinguishes it from siblings like get_locators and create_section_markers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The rename behavior implies usage for single locator placement, but it does not say when to prefer this over create_section_markers or other tools. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the conversion from bars to beats using the time signature, the placement mechanism (via set_locator), and the convention that Bar 1 is beat 0. However, it does not discuss whether existing locators are overwritten, duplicate-name handling, or any error conditions, which limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the conversion and parameter format. The parameter details are necessary given the loose schema, and the example is helpful. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for correct invocation: the input structure, conversion logic, and starting-point convention. It does not explicitly mention error cases or return values, but for this tool that is not critical, making it nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining the sections parameter as a list of {'name': str, 'bar': int} dicts with a concrete example. It also clarifies the meaning of bar numbers relative to the arrangement, and explains user_prompt as telemetry, which is essential for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create a set of arrangement locators from a song structure, given in bars.' It identifies the specific resource (arrangement locators) and implies a batch operation, distinguishing it from the singular set_locator sibling. The use of 'set_locator' internally clarifies its relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating multiple locators from a song structure in bars). It does not explicitly compare with set_locator or state when not to use it, but the mention of 'a set' and 'via set_locator' implies this is a higher-level convenience, offering enough guidance for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses several important behaviors: 'creates the clip if empty', 'notes are stretched so there are no silent gaps' for continuous, 'root note for each bar is deduced from the lowest note sounding', and 'progression ignored if follow_track_index is given'. It does not mention overwrite behavior, return values, or error conditions, but given no annotations, it provides substantial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise lead sentence followed by a clear parameter list. It is relatively long but justified by 13 parameters and the need to explain complex constraints. Each line earns its place, with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core algorithm, parameter semantics, and modes. However, it omits return value/response format, whether existing notes are overwritten, and potential error scenarios (e.g., no harmony found). This is a notable gap but the description is still much more complete than typical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains all 13 parameters with meaningful detail: style enum values, progression format, octave convention (C3 == MIDI 60), mutual exclusivity constraints (exactly one of clip_index/arrangement_start), and the meaning of follow_clip_index/follow_arrangement_clip_index. This goes far beyond raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Write a bassline that follows the harmony of another track's clip, or a given chord progression, in a genre-appropriate style.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that differentiates it from siblings like generate_chord_progression and generate_drum_pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining the two modes (follow_track_index or progression) and the style parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., manually adding notes or using other generators). There is no exclusion or comparison guidance, so it is a clear context without explicit when/when-not advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (index, name, start_time, end_time, length, type) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention ordering, potential absence of clips, or whether both audio and MIDI clips are included, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states the purpose, second lists return values, third provides a workflow hint, and then parameter definitions. No unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers its core behavior, return fields, and parameter semantics. It also mentions a related tool. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by listing the returned attributes. Minor omissions like ordering or clip types prevent a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions, and the description explicitly explains both parameters: track_index as the track to inspect and user_prompt as telemetry. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though the meaning of track_index is somewhat obvious from its name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List all clips placed in the Arrangement timeline for a track') with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_arrangement_clip_notes and create_clip by focusing on listing existing arrangement clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to inspect clips on a track and provides a concrete downstream use case (passing the index to get_arrangement_clip_notes). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the clip is 'empty' and 'brand-new,' and that it targets a MIDI track. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether an existing clip at the same position is overwritten, whether the clip becomes selected, or any constraints on track_index/start_time. This is adequate for a simple creation tool but leaves room for ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a bullet-style parameter list. There is no redundant information, and every line adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple: create an empty MIDI clip. The description covers the purpose and all parameters, which is nearly complete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. However, it does not address edge cases like overlapping clips, invalid track indices, or what happens after creation (e.g., selection state). This is a minor gap for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains all four parameters: track_index (target MIDI track), start_time (beat position), length (with default 4.0), and user_prompt (telemetry). This fully compensates for the input schema, which has only titles and no descriptions (0% coverage). The parameter list adds clear meaning and usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a brand-new empty MIDI clip') and specifies the location ('directly in the Arrangement timeline') and the distinction from Session clips ('without going through a Session clip slot first'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_clip and create_audio_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool by explicitly stating it bypasses Session clip slots, which indirectly distinguishes it from create_clip. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state conditions like 'use this when you need a clip directly in arrangement.' This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the version requirement and preconditions (audio track, empty slot), which is helpful. However, it does not describe return values, error behavior, or side effects beyond creation, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a crucial version note, then a structured parameter list. Everything earns its place; no redundant text. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides purpose, prerequisites, and parameter details. It lacks return value/error handling information, but for a create operation with clear preconditions, it is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description manually explains each parameter: track_index, clip_index, path (including example .wav and constraints), and user_prompt (telemetry). This fully compensates for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new audio clip in an audio track's clip slot by importing a file.' This is a specific verb + resource + method, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'create_clip' by specifying audio track and clip slot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear usage context: requires Ableton Live 12.0.5+, target must be an audio track, and clip slot must be empty. These are explicit preconditions. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the audio vs MIDI distinction is implied through the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of set_project_key adds context, but it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, what happens if values are unset, or any return format. This is acceptable but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and then briefly covering the parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one optional parameter, the description adequately lists the returned data (key, tempo, genre) and mentions the association with set_project_key. It lacks explicit return format or edge-case behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description fully explains the only parameter (user_prompt) as serving telemetry, providing meaning beyond the schema's bare title and default. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making the parameter's purpose clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the project's current tonal center (key/mode), tempo, and genre, using the specific verb 'Get' and naming the exact data resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_project_key or get_session_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context by noting these values are 'as previously set with set_project_key', which implies this tool is the getter counterpart to set_project_key. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid using it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains case-insensitive substring matching, the max_results limit, and the user_prompt telemetry parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe side effects, though 'search' implies non-mutating behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description opens with a concise, front-loaded purpose sentence, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, and matching behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or what a result item looks like, which would be useful for downstream use. Still, the core invocation context is well-covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query (case-insensitive substring), category_type (with possible values and reference to get_browser_tree), max_results (default 25), and user_prompt (telemetry). It adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the Ableton browser for items whose name contains a query string.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource, and the substring matching criterion distinguishes it from related browser navigation tools like get_browser_tree and get_browser_items_at_path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives parameter context (e.g., category_type can be 'all' or a specific category from get_browser_tree) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the search semantics, but there are no when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: creates clip if empty, merges pattern over defaults, swing effect on off-beat 8ths, humanize randomization. However, it doesn't state whether existing notes in a non-empty clip are overwritten or preserve behavior, which is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured as a parameter list, with front-loaded purpose. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds necessary meaning for a 9-parameter tool; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers all parameters and the main usage constraint. It lacks error-condition details (e.g., what if track isn't a drum rack) but is otherwise comprehensive for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains every parameter with defaults, examples, and edge cases (e.g., pattern object format, clip_index/arrangement_start exclusivity). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('genre-style drum pattern as MIDI notes into a clip on a drum rack track'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like generate_bassline and generate_chord_progression.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context, including when to pass clip_index vs arrangement_start ('pass exactly one of') and when genre defaults to project genre. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying Live API (track.duplicate_clip_to_arrangement()), the destination placement in beats, and that the clip stays on the same track. It does not mention edge cases or side effects, but provides solid behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by API/behavior, a three-step workflow, and parameter details. Every section adds value, and the front-loaded opening makes the tool's function immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains all parameters, the API, and the integration with sibling tools in a workflow. It could be improved by mentioning whether the source clip is preserved or if any return value is expected, but it covers the essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a dedicated Parameters section that explains each argument in plain language, including examples for destination_time (e.g., 0.0 = start, 8.0 = bar 3 in 4/4). Since schema descriptions are absent, this fully compensates for the 0% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy a Session-view clip into the Arrangement timeline.' It clearly states the core function and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_arrangement_midi_clip, which creates a new clip rather than duplicating an existing one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear workflow: build a Session clip, call duplicate_to_arrangement per bar/section, then switch_to_arrangement_view. It implies when to use the tool relative to other steps, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'read' and lists the return fields, which is strong behavioral disclosure. It does not mention error cases or index conventions, but for a pure read tool it is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (four sentences) and well-structured, opening with the core purpose, then return values, use cases, and parameters. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, return values, use cases, and parameters, which is nearly complete for a read-only tool. It lacks error handling notes and explicit index conventions, but the absence of an output schema is well mitigated by the enumerated return data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, but the description includes a Parameters section that explains each parameter, including the telemetry role of user_prompt. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read all MIDI notes out of a clip' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact data returned (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute state, clip name, length) and distinguishes itself from related tools like add_notes_to_clip and get_arrangement_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'inspecting what's already in a clip before editing it' and 'reading back what add_notes_to_clip wrote.' This gives clear context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_arrangement_clip_notes, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List') and specifies the returned data (name and beat position). It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a listing operation, making it sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence, a usage hint in the second, and a brief parameter note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, but the description already states that the tool returns name and beat position. It does not specify the exact structure (array, objects), but for a simple listing tool with a telemetry-only parameter, the description covers the essentials and is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single parameter 'user_prompt' with no description. The tool description adds meaningful context: 'The original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry).' This goes beyond the schema by explaining the parameter's purpose and that it is non-functional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all arrangement locators (markers/cue points) with their name and beat position.' This uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('arrangement locators'), and includes output details, distinguishing it from siblings like set_locator or create_section_markers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a direct use case: 'Use this to find a named marker (e.g. "Drop") before navigating or placing clips relative to it.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return fields (index, name, color, group flag, group index) and clarifies the purpose without guessing. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'List all tracks' strongly implies a non-mutating operation. It adds behavior context beyond the bare tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear main sentence, a return-value summary, and a parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description fully specifies what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the essential information needed to use it correctly: the output fields and the purpose of the parameter. No output schema is present, so the description adequately carries the needed context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, user_prompt, is meaningfully described as 'the original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry)', which adds context beyond the schema's simple title and default. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('List all tracks') and resource ('group/folder membership'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info or get_session_info. It also states the purpose: to identify group tracks and nested tracks without guessing indices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context for when to use this tool (when you need track hierarchy/group membership) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It implies this is the go-to tool for hierarchy information, which is sufficient, though it could be more explicit about not using it for single-track details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Does not touch Live unless tempo is given', and explains that genre affects generator defaults. It adds meaningful context about state and side effects, though it does not discuss validation or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is logically structured: a clear one-line summary, a context paragraph explaining its role, and a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, side effects, parameter semantics, and usage context, making it sufficient for correct selection and invocation. A mention of return value or explicit alternative for tempo-only changes would improve it, but these are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: tonic with examples, mode with scale examples, tempo condition, genre purpose, and user_prompt for telemetry. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Set the project's tonal center (key/mode), and optionally tempo and genre' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling generators by positioning set_project_key as the foundational state-setting tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains that this is the foundation for chord/bass/drum generators and snap_to_scale, indicating when to use it before those tools. It also clarifies 'Does not touch Live unless tempo is given', providing context for side effects, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like set_tempo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read all MIDI notes'), the exact return fields (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute state, clip name and length), and the prerequisite call. It does not describe error cases, but for a read operation this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, leading with the core action, then return values, then prerequisites, then parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter bullet list is cleanly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains the return values and the necessary preliminary step. For a simple read tool with no annotations, it provides all the information an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for each parameter: track_index identifies the track, clip_index is tied to get_arrangement_clips, and user_prompt is explicitly for telemetry. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read all MIDI notes out of a clip placed in the Arrangement timeline,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_clip_notes by specifying the Arrangement timeline and mentioning get_arrangement_clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Use get_arrangement_clips first to find the clip's index.' This clearly indicates the required sequence of operations, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses key behavioral traits: tracks are 'created plain/named/colored', chords/bass/drums are generated across the 'drop' section or the first one, and dry_run returns a plan without modifications. These details go beyond the basic operation and provide valuable insight into side effects and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is lengthy but well-structured, with a front-loaded summary, a paragraph of exclusions, and a thorough parameter list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. While it is verbose, the complexity of the tool (9 parameters) justifies the length, and the format makes it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity, absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers all parameters, defaults, side effects, and limitations. It hints at the result structure ('see the `note` field in the result') but does not fully describe the return format, which is a minor gap for such a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with meaning, examples, and defaults. For instance, genre 'drives tempo, default mode, and bass/drum style', progression is described as 'Scale degrees for the chord progression, e.g. [1, 6, 4, 5]', and structure format is explicitly defined. This is comprehensive and leaves little ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Build a playable musical base from an empty (or clean) set in one call: key + tempo, section markers, and chords/bass/drums for the main section.' This specifies a distinct verb, resource, and scope, and differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly noting what it does not do (create groups, load instruments, set loop).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool ('from an empty (or clean) set in one call') and what it does not cover ('Does NOT create groups, load instruments, or set a loop — those still need to be done by hand in Live'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the exclusion is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the safety burden. It explicitly warns that the action is destructive, cannot be undone through the MCP server, and directs users to Ableton's undo for recovery, which goes well beyond a bare delete command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, follows with a critical warning, and ends with a terse parameter list. No filler or redundant exposition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool, the description covers the essential action, destructiveness, and parameters. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the operation is conceptually straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description annotates both schema parameters: track_index is explained as the index of the track to delete, and user_prompt is clarified as telemetry carrying the original user prompt. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's plain titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action—deleting a track—and clarifies scope by noting it also removes clips and devices. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_clip and delete_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the tool's context obvious—use it to fully delete a track—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The destructive warning implies caution, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that devices can have 50-100+ parameters, that name_filter is case-insensitive, and that oscillators, filters, envelopes, and LFOs are exposed as named parameters. This adds significant insight beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise summary, a contextual paragraph explaining why filtering matters, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the format enables quick scanning for both purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (parameter names, current values, valid ranges) and how to navigate the result space. It also references related tools, making it complete for the tool's apparent complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates excellently with a dedicated 'Parameters' section that explains each parameter in plain language, including optionality, filtering semantics, and telemetry purpose. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists device parameters with their current values and valid ranges, using the specific verb 'List'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_device_parameter by focusing on read-only inspection, and it gives concrete examples of supported devices, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides strong usage context: it explains when to use name_filter (to narrow large parameter lists) and references get_track_info for finding device indices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the read-only nature and sibling names make the distinction implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavior: each entry is applied independently, and bad values are reported without blocking others. This partial-failure semantics is valuable for an agent to predict outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief purpose sentence, an illustrative use case, a prerequisite hint, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameters and lack of output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter format, example usage, and error behavior. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description enriches the sparse schema by explaining each parameter: track_index, device_index, and the structure of the 'parameters' list (each dict with 'value' and either 'parameter_name' or 'parameter_index'). It also includes a concrete example, fully compensating for zero schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets several parameters on a device in one call, with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('parameters on a device'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling set_device_parameter by emphasizing batch operations and giving concrete synth examples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly advises using get_device_parameters first to discover parameter names/indices and valid ranges, and explains the use case (designing sounds on synths). This provides clear context for when to use the tool and the necessary prerequisite step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/F-Fischer/ableton-copilot'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server