live_set_snapshot
Read the current Ableton Live Set to capture a snapshot of its tracks, clips, and mixer settings.
Instructions
Read the current Ableton Live Set.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Read the current Ableton Live Set to capture a snapshot of its tracks, clips, and mixer settings.
Read the current Ableton Live Set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 explicitly says 'Read', which implies non-mutating behavior, but it does not describe return format, performance characteristics, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that effectively states the tool's purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers its behavior. It could specify what the returned snapshot contains, but the name and description together imply a full representation of the Live Set, which is likely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. No parameter description is needed, and the schema shows an empty object, so there is nothing more to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('the current Ableton Live Set'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_bassline' and 'health' by indicating a read-only snapshot operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Fasping/livebrain-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server