ableton-mcp-lofifren

by LofiFren

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap with legacy aliases like 'add_personality_solo' and similar operations like 'create_clip' vs 'create_clip_with_notes'. Overall, an agent can distinguish between tools with reasonable accuracy.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., 'add_arrangement_locator', 'set_track_volume'). A few names like 'bounce_session_to_arrangement' or 'get_browser_items_at_path' are longer but still consistent with the overall convention.
Tool Count2/5
With 62 tools, the set is excessively large for an MCP server. This likely overwhelms agents, making selection difficult. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., 'add_personality' subsumes 'add_personality_solo').
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a broad range of Ableton Live operations including session setup, track/clip management, browser search, personality-based generation, and arrangement features. Minor gaps exist (e.g., scene deletion, automation), but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.6/5 across 62 of 62 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 9, 2026
- 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.json to 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning reversibility, effect on playback, or potential side effects. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded. However, it is too brief and sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less useful than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain the effect of the arm boolean, how track_index is interpreted, or what happens after the action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters at all. With 0% schema description coverage and no param info in the description, the agent cannot understand the meaning of 'track_index' or 'arm' beyond their names. The schema provides basic types but no semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (arm/disarm) and the resource (track) with the purpose of recording. It distinguishes itself from sibling set_track_* tools by specifying 'for recording', making the action clear. However, it does not elaborate on the concept of arming.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as set_track_mute or other recording-related commands. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions under which arming 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the action, omitting effects like muting other tracks, audio output changes, or required track existence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise but at the expense of completeness. It omits critical context that would justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. An agent needs to infer indexing, required state, and side effects from the name alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of track_index (e.g., 0-based?) or the solo boolean. The agent relies solely on parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Solo or unsolo a track.' clearly states the action on a specific resource. It is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not differentiate from sibling mute/arm tools beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to solo vs mute, or prerequisites like track type or state.
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 provided. Description only says 'Start playing a clip' without disclosing behavior like clip state changes, audio output, or errors. Lacks behavioral details beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with two sentences. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail; a bit more context would improve it without adding verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 integer parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It omits success indicators, error conditions, and runtime behavior, making it incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats parameter names and adds minimal context ('the index of the track containing the clip'). Schema has 0% coverage, but the description still fails to specify indexing (e.g., 0-based), valid ranges, or side effects of invalid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Start playing a clip', clearly indicating the verb (start playing) and resource (a clip). It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_clip' and 'fire_scene', but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 like 'fire_scene' or duplicate/stop. No context about prerequisites or when not to use.
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 only mentions the two actions but lacks details on side effects, permissions, error handling, or what happens if the rack already exists or kit is missing. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two clear parts: a purpose sentence and a parameter list. No unnecessary text, though parameter descriptions could be integrated into a more flowing structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings. However, it omits behavioral context, output expectations, and usage conditions, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds some meaning by providing brief explanations and examples for each parameter (e.g., 'Drums/Drum Rack' for rack_uri). However, it lacks details on formats, constraints, or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it loads a drum rack and then a drum kit, specifying the action and resources. While it distinguishes from siblings by its specific combination, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or conditions for use. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and 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 burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, whether existing devices are replaced, or permission requirements. It only states the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with purpose, followed by a parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the structure could be more organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description omits return values, success/failure behavior, and side effects. It is incomplete for a load tool, leaving the agent unsure of what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does 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 restates parameter names with brief context (e.g., 'The index of the track') but adds minimal additional meaning beyond the obvious property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Load'), the resource ('instrument or effect'), and the method ('using its URI'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like load_instrument_by_name which uses names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 like load_instrument_by_name or load_drum_kit. The description does not specify prerequisites or contexts where a URI is applicable.
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. It only states 'Mute or unmute a track' but fails to disclose effects on playback, automation, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential details. It is front-loaded but too short to be sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It omits return values, error handling, and prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not clarify indexing (0- or 1-based) or the behavior of the boolean mute flag.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (mute/unmute) and the resource (track), with a specific verb and noun. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_solo or set_track_arm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 (e.g., toggle vs direct set) or any prerequisites. The description does not mention any context for use.
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 present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action (e.g., what happens if clip is not playing, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and includes parameter listing, which is somewhat redundant with the schema but still readable. It is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't cover edge cases or behavior insights.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameter names and references (track index, clip index) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Stop playing a clip,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fire_clip 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 Guidelines2/5
Does 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, no exclusions or context 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only reveals that index -1 means end of list. There is no mention of side effects, undoability, or required permissions for this mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and parameter. Every word is necessary, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning the return value or any consequences. It feels minimal given potential context (e.g., what happens to existing scenes).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add value. It explains the meaning of the 'index' parameter and its default value (-1). This is helpful but minimal; more could be said about valid range or behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'create' and the resource 'scene', and explains the index parameter. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fire_scene' and 'set_scene_name' by focusing on creation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_clip' or 'create_audio_track'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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, when not to use, or any suggestions for typical use 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description only covers basic functionality and parameters. It lacks disclosure of side effects, return values, error handling, or prerequisites such as required session state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters with defaults and ranges. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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 omits crucial context such as what the tool returns, potential errors, and how it compares to sibling tools with similar functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema, e.g., specifying volume range 0.0-1.0, pan range -1.0 to 1.0, and recommending use of search_browser for instrument_uri. However, it could be more explicit about constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a track with optional parameters, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_audio_track and create_midi_track, which have more specific purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 create_audio_track or create_midi_track. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
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 burden. It states 'leaving the slot empty' which adds some behavioral context, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or confirm if the action is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one clear sentence and a list of parameters. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more efficient by integrating parameter explanations into the sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple deletion with two integer params and no output schema, the description provides the basic action and parameter meanings. However, it lacks error handling context, prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist), and behavioral details like undo support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must define parameters. It explains track_index and clip_index as indices, but does not specify valid ranges, data types in context, or potential errors, leaving the agent to guess constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a clip from a clip slot, leaving the slot empty' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (clip from clip slot). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_notes_from_clip' or '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 Guidelines2/5
Does 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. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, such as whether the clip slot must exist or if there are undo considerations.
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 fully disclose behavior. It states the action 'fire' (launch) but does not specify side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid index), or prerequisites. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given 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 should cover behavioral aspects, error handling, and return values. It only states the basic effect, leaving the agent without guidance on prerequisites or failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds that scene_index is 0-based, which is a slight improvement over the schema's title and type. However, it does not explain valid range or behavior for out-of-range values, offering minimal added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'fire' (launch) and the resource 'scene', and explains the effect: 'triggering all clips in that row across all tracks'. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like fire_clip or create_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 fire_clip or create_scene. It lacks context for appropriate usage or exclusions.
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 burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or error handling. The description merely states what it does, not how it behaves beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter details could be integrated more succinctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing crucial details: no output schema, so the description should explain return values (e.g., list of items with properties). Also lacks error handling info for invalid paths. Given the tool's complexity and context, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'path' parameter by specifying the expected format 'category/folder/subfolder' and that category must be a valid browser category. This goes beyond the schema's simple string type. However, it does not list valid categories.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'browser items' with a specific path. It contrasts with sibling tools like get_browser_tree (tree structure) and search_browser (search), making its purpose distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_browser_tree or search_browser), nor any prerequisites or conditions.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the effect on song tempo when scene fires, but does not mention persistence, precedence, or 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, description covers the main behavior. However, missing details like tempo units reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds no meaning beyond schema. Schema coverage is 0%, yet description does not explain units, range, or format for scene_index or tempo (e.g., BPM).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it sets a per-scene tempo and that firing the scene sets the song tempo. Distinguishes from sibling like set_tempo by specifying scene-level behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for scene-specific tempo control but does not explicitly state when to use versus global set_tempo or other tempo-related tools. No exclusions or alternatives 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?
Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tempo is set, but does not explain side effects (e.g., immediate change to playback, persistence, constraints like tempo range). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a line for parameter details. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core function. However, it lacks constraints (valid tempo range) and does not acknowledge the existence of a similar tool ('set_scene_tempo'), which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the unit 'BPM' to the parameter 'tempo', which is not in the schema. This provides helpful semantics. However, no range, precision, or formatting details are given, and schema coverage is 0%. The added value is moderate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the tempo') and the resource ('the Ableton session'). It provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'set_scene_tempo', which could cause confusion about whether this sets the global tempo or a scene-specific tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'set_scene_tempo'. There is no mention of context, preconditions, or exclusions. The minimal description assumes the user already knows 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the tool creates an audio track. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the index is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for parameter explanation. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks information on how this tool relates to sibling tools and any return value, leaving gaps for an AI agent to fully determine applicability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the sole parameter 'index' with its default and meaning ('insert at, -1 = end of list'), adding valuable context beyond the schema's minimal properties. Schema description coverage was 0%, so this compensation is significant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an audio track in the Ableton session ('Create a new audio track'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_midi_track' or 'create_track', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., create_midi_track, create_track). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or conditions for use.
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 fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. No mention of side effects, reversibility, or constraints like valid scene indexes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the minimal information provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details like index base (0 vs 1) or name constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names. 'scene_index' and 'name' are self-explanatory, but no details on allowed values or behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('a scene's name'), which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_name or set_clip_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely functional without context.
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 states that the tool renames a track, implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or limits. This is insufficient for complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with a clear structure: a sentence followed by a parameter list. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema. A minor improvement would be more compact text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two simple parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any behavioral context or constraints, making it incomplete for a comprehensive understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning by explaining that track_index is 'the index of the track to rename' and name is 'the new name'. While this adds some context, it essentially restates the parameter names and titles, providing only minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set the name of a track') and specifies the resource ('a track'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_clip_name or set_scene_name, achieving a high purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 set_clip_name or set_scene_name. It lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use, resulting in minimal usage 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 must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Start playing', with no mention of effects on current state (e.g., what happens if already playing), required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description is partially complete. It states the action but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. Given low complexity, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not thorough coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description meets that minimal standard.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts playing the Ableton session, distinguishing it from siblings like 'stop_playback'. However, it does not differentiate from 'fire_clip' or 'fire_scene', which also initiate playback but of specific elements, so clarity is slightly reduced.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 prerequisites or conditions. The description omits context like whether a session must be loaded or if playback is already active, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 implies a read operation via the word 'get', but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any behavioral traits. Without annotations, the description should provide explicit safety cues, which are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and no unnecessary words. It directly states the purpose and parameter, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks detail about the return value or output format. With no output schema, the agent does not know what 'detailed information' includes, which is a significant gap for a tool with only one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter track_index is explained as 'the index of the track to get information about', adding meaning beyond the schema. With zero schema coverage, the description compensates adequately for this simple integer parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool gets detailed information about a specific track in Ableton. The verb and resource are clear, but it lacks specificity on what 'detailed information' includes, and it does not differentiate from siblings like get_track_devices 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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. It discloses the volume range and default, but fails to mention important behaviors like whether the setting is absolute or relative, what happens to existing volume, error handling for invalid indices, or 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only two sentences plus parameter details. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity of the tool (two simple parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter constraints. However, it lacks information on return values, error handling, or validation behavior, leaving gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning: track_index is the index, volume is 0.0-1.0 with default ~0.85. However, it does not clarify if track_index is zero-based or what occurs if the index is out of bounds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the volume of a track' clearly states the action and target resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_master_volume, set_track_mute, etc., which adjust different attributes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, such as track existence, or comparisons to related tools like set_master_volume.
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?
The description does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether notes are appended or overwritten, whether there are limits on note count, or if adding notes affects playback. With no annotations available, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and gets straight to the point, but the parameter list could be more structured (e.g., formatted separately). It is front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given 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 covers the essential purpose and parameters, but is incomplete on behavioral aspects (e.g., append vs. overwrite, error handling). It is adequate for basic usage but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, but the description provides clear explanations for each parameter, especially 'notes' by listing its subfields (pitch, start_time, etc.). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's minimal type constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add MIDI notes') and the resource ('clip'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_clip_with_notes' (which creates both clip and notes) and 'remove_notes_from_clip' (which removes notes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the clip must exist and be a MIDI clip) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute), but does not mention that it is read-only, potential performance implications, or error conditions. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences plus a parameter list, no wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic functionality and return fields but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist), error handling, or performance notes. It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explicitly explaining both parameters (track_index, clip_index) in natural language. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all MIDI notes from a clip', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip or remove_notes_from_clip, which would have earned a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent 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 provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites, triggers side effects, or handles invalid indices. The description is insufficient to inform the agent of important behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with a clear parameter list. It could be more concise by removing redundancy, but it is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without output schema or annotations, the description covers the basics but lacks completeness. It does not mention zero-based indexing, existence requirements, or error handling, which would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly adds meaning for each parameter (e.g., 'The index of the track containing the clip') which compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the name of a clip' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (clip name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_clip, delete_clip, or set_track_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 like set_track_name or set_scene_name. Missing prerequisites (e.g., track and clip must exist) and context for valid index ranges.
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 burden but only states the basic creation action. It does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing clips, permission requirements, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one introductory sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic creation action. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds explanations for each parameter beyond the schema's titles and types. For example, it defines 'track_index' as 'the index of the track' and 'length' as 'the length in beats'. However, it could specify indexing convention (0-based) and behavior when clip slot is occupied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create', the resource 'MIDI clip', and the specific location 'in the specified track and clip slot'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_clip_with_notes' and 'add_clip_to_arrangement'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over similar tools like 'create_clip_with_notes'.
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 only states 'Create a new MIDI track'. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, track reordering behavior, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence is useful and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essentials but lacks information about return value, prerequisites, and interaction with the session state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly explains the 'index' parameter's meaning and its default sentinel value (-1 for end of list), adding value beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('new MIDI track'), and the context ('in the Ableton session'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_audio_track and create_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 like create_audio_track or create_track. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information is given.
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. It only states it 'gets information' but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, auth requirements, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple (no parameters), the description does not specify what 'detailed information' includes. Given no output schema, the agent may have incomplete expectations about the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but no added value is needed as there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about the current Ableton session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_arrangement_info or get_track_info that focus on specific sub-components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 (e.g., when session-level info is needed vs. track or clip info). The description merely states functionality without context.
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 present, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions stability across Live 11+ but omits behavioral traits like side effects, permission requirements, or whether the loop change affects playback. Mutation implications are implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first clearly states purpose, second adds version info. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers basic action and stability but lacks parameter constraints (e.g., start < end?), side effects, and return behavior. Adequate for a simple mutation but incomplete for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: 'in beats' for start/end and 'whether the loop is enabled' for loop_on. This helps interpretation beyond bare titles and types, though units and constraints (e.g., positive numbers) are not detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'set', the resource 'arrangement loop region', the unit 'in beats', and the boolean 'loop on'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'set_clip_loop' by name and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., set_clip_loop for clips). The description lacks context about prerequisites or 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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameter constraints, not side effects, undo behavior, or scope (e.g., global vs. per-track).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, but the parameter details are embedded in a sentence rather than a structured list. Still, it is clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention global scope or implications, but the provided constraints are sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only types and required status, with 0% coverage. The description adds essential semantics: valid ranges for numerator (1-99) and denominator (powers of 2: 1,2,4,8,16).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the song's time signature,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool sets time signature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, or the context in which it should be invoked. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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 full burden. It only states that it sets panning and gives the range, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing pan, affects automation, or requires the track to exist. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—two sentences plus brief parameter explanations—with no superfluous content. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what it does, the parameter meanings, and the valid range for pan. It could mention error handling for out-of-range values, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does 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 explains the pan parameter with its range and center value, and clarifies that track_index is 'the index of the track'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the panning of a track.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_mute, which set different parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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. It simply describes the action without indicating scenarios or exclusions.
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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions clamping of notes outside MIDI range and provides implementation details (read, mutate, batch). However, it does not state whether the operation is undoable, if playback must stop, or any permissions needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences plus an implementation note. Every sentence adds value, and the key behavior (transpose with clamping) is front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a note-transposing tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and an important edge case (clamping). It lacks usage guidelines and parameter details for indices, but overall it's quite complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'semitones' parameter (positive=up, negative=down) but does not describe 'track_index' or 'clip_index'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but not fully for all three required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Transpose every note in a clip by semitones' with direction indication. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip or remove_notes_from_clip by focusing on pitch modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., quantize_clip), nor does it mention prerequisites such as the need for an existing clip with MIDI notes. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool undoes the last action, but lacks details on what exactly happens (e.g., whether it undoes only one step, what occurs if no actions to undo, or side effects on other states).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; no redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the context of Ableton, the description is largely complete. However, it could benefit from clarifying scope (e.g., global undo vs track-specific) or limitations, but the current description suffices for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no param info needed). According to guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not add param info, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a concise verb+resource statement: 'Undo the last action in Ableton.' It clearly states the action (undo) and the context (the last action in Ableton), distinguishing it from all sibling tools, which cover various other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use undo versus alternatives, such as redo or reverting specific changes. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations (e.g., undo history depth), or when not to use this tool.
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 provided. Description only mentions it's an alias, not detailing any behavioral traits like mutation, permissions, or 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information, no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides insufficient context for correct usage; relies heavily on familiarity with add_personality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds no information about any of the 8 parameters, leaving them entirely to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it is a legacy alias for add_personality restricted to solo personalities, distinguishing it from the general add_personality tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to prefer add_personality because it auto-dispatches by role, and explains this tool is kept for backward compatibility.
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 for behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool does. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects or performance considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second lists the parameter options. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers purpose and parameter semantics. However, it could be improved by hinting at the output structure (e.g., 'returns a tree of category names') for better completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all possible values for 'category_type' ('all', 'instruments', 'sounds', 'drums', 'audio_effects', 'midi_effects'), fully clarifying the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_browser_items_at_path and search_browser by focusing on the top-level category structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 (e.g., get_browser_items_at_path or search_browser). It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the AI to infer usage without explicit 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?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains default behavior and parameter effects but omits crucial details: whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, affects undo history, or has side effects like clearing undo steps. The description is minimal for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by a parameter list. Every line adds value, and the default behaviors are efficiently communicated. No redundancy or unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not mention return values or confirmation. It also omits error handling (e.g., invalid track or clip indices) and does not clarify if the operation is permanent or undoable. For a simple removal tool, the missing context is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (no per-parameter descriptions). The description compensates by listing all 6 parameters, clarifying their roles (e.g., 'from_time: Start time in beats'), and explaining defaults. However, it could better clarify the relationship between time_span and from_time, and pitch_span and from_pitch.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove MIDI notes from a clip') and specifies the scope ('within a specified range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_notes_to_clip' and 'get_clip_notes', which have opposite or different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies default behavior (remove all notes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'quantize_clip' for editing, 'delete_clip' for entire clip removal). No guidance on when not to use it is 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?
The description indicates the tool modifies clip state (destructive) and notes that loop_end must be > loop_start, but lacks details on prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence stating purpose followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. Every element is meaningful, and the key constraint is highlighted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains the parameters and one constraint but omits return values, error conditions, and prerequisites. It covers the basics but lacks completeness for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: loop_start/loop_end as beat positions, loop_on as enable toggle, and the constraint that loop_end > loop_start. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a clip's loop region and whether it loops, with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like set_clip_length. It is precise 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 Guidelines2/5
Does 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 explicit when-not-to-use. The description only explains parameters 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action, failing to mention side effects like whether the playhead resets, if all clips stop, or if there are other implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, containing exactly the essential information with no redundancy or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks details about return behavior (e.g., success confirmation) and exact effects on the session state, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (by default). The description does not need to add parameter info, and it does not; thus, it earns a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Stop playing') and explicitly identifies the resource ('the Ableton session'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop_clip' (stops a single clip) and 'start_playback'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when wanting to stop session playback, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or context.
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 states it is a 'single batched call,' implying atomicity, but does not disclose error handling, behavior if clip index already occupied, limits on notes, or return value. Basic behavior is covered but lacks depth beyond what is inferred.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and a parameter list, clearly front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence and parameter is necessary, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does and its required parameters. It could mention return behavior (success/failure) or whether it overwrites existing clips, but overall it is fairly complete for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description lists parameters with brief explanations. For 'notes,' it provides the dict format {pitch, start_time, duration, velocity?, mute?}, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's generic array of objects. Other params are minimally described but sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a MIDI clip and populate it with notes in a single batched call,' specifying the verb (create), resource (MIDI clip), and action (populate with notes), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_clip' (likely empty) and 'add_notes_to_clip' (adds to existing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that for adding notes to an existing clip, one should use 'add_notes_to_clip', or that for an empty clip, use 'create_clip'. The name implies batching but the description lacks usage context.
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 provided, so description carries burden. Adds constraints but lacks details on operation behavior (e.g., whether source is modified, error handling, or result).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, distinguishes from sibling, and lists constraints. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers prerequisites and differentiation but misses outcome details (e.g., return value, success indicator) and error handling. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Four parameters with 0% schema coverage. Description does not explain parameter semantics beyond naming, leaving interpretation of indexing or ranges to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Duplicate a MIDI clip to any other track + slot' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'duplicate_clip_to' by noting cross-track capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use (cross-track duplication) and constraints (both tracks must be MIDI, destination slot empty). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the alternative is 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 provided, so description must compensate. It mentions the target slot must be empty, a behavioral constraint, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or whether source clip is affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a bullet list. Each sentence serves a purpose, no filler. The structure front-loads the purpose and lists parameters clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three simple integer parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a key constraint. However, it lacks information on return values, error conditions, and what happens to the source clip.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all three parameters: track_index, clip_index, and target_clip_index with brief explanations. However, descriptions are minimal and could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool duplicates a clip to another clip slot on the same track, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'duplicate_clip' by specifying the target slot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 like 'duplicate_clip'. The only usage hint is that the target slot must be empty, but no context on prerequisites or conditions.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It explains parameter value range (0.0 to 1.0) and send index mapping, but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track must exist and have sends), or return behavior. Adequate for a simple setter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences plus a parameter list, no redundant text. Information is front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence serves a clear function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality and parameter details, but lacks mention of error handling, prerequisites, or return format. For a simple parameter-setting tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (only titles), but description adds meaning: track_index and send_index are clarified with index mapping (Send A, Send B), and value range is specified (0.0 to 1.0). This goes beyond the schema's minimal info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a send amount on a track' with specific verb and resource, and adds context 'for routing to return tracks', distinguishing it from siblings like set_track_volume or set_track_pan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use set_track_send instead of set_track_volume). The description provides no exclusions or context for selection.
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 explains pattern tiling over length and kit mapping, but lacks disclosure of whether notes overwrite existing content in the clip, what happens with invalid indexes, or error handling. No annotations exist to offset this lack.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear opening statement and bulleted parameter list. It could be slightly more compact but is efficient for the information provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers pattern logic, parameter details, and default mappings. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist, track and clip indexes must be valid) and does not clarify if the clip should be empty. No output schema to supplement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for pattern (enumerates values), kit_map (structure and defaults), velocity (range), and length (tiling). However, it does not explain track_index or clip_index beyond listing them in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Write a preset drum pattern into an existing clip' and enumerates specific preset patterns (four_on_floor, trap, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like add_notes_to_clip and load_drum_kit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for preset drum patterns via parameter values, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like add_notes_to_clip. 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the operation is atomic, reading existing notes, rounding start times, and batch removing and writing. It does not claim any destructive side effects beyond note modification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: one sentence for purpose, then parameter list, then implementation detail. No wasted words and front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided; the description does not explain return values or error cases. However, implementation detail adds context. Missing some behavioral aspects like permissions or response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains the 'grid' parameter with enum values but does not add meaning for 'track_index' or 'clip_index' beyond their names. Partial compensation but not complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool quantizes all notes in a clip to a grid, using the specific verb 'quantize' and resource 'clip notes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_notes_to_clip' or 'remove_notes_from_clip'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for snapping notes to a grid but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_notes_to_clip' or 'get_clip_notes'. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Set the master track volume' and provides the valid range (0.0 to 1.0) and a default. However, it does not describe the effect on playback, whether the change is instantaneous, or if it overrides previous settings. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two brief sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second details the parameter. No extraneous words, perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose and parameter range/default. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'unity' (whether it's the default if absent, even though the parameter is required) or the return behavior. Missing output schema and no mention of side effects leaves it moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the 'volume' parameter: its range (0.0 to 1.0) and a default (~0.85). This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple type definition, earning a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the master track volume,' specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_track_volume' by specifying 'master,' making its 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 Guidelines3/5
Does 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 (to set master volume) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives like 'set_track_volume' for regular tracks. The absence of exclusions or comparative guidance keeps it at a 3.
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 tracks are created at the end of the existing list and returns a JSON summary, but does not cover edge cases like null parameters or error behavior, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief purpose sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. It is slightly verbose but remains clear and front-loaded. Could be shortened slightly without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions the return type (JSON summary). It covers all parameters and provides context like 'load via search_browser first' for instrument URIs. However, it lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but remains fairly complete for a bootstrap tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed semantics for all three parameters: tempo format (BPM), time_signature array format, and tracks as a list of dicts with optional fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool bootstraps an Ableton session with tempo, time signature, and track creation in one round-trip. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_tempo, set_time_signature, create_track, which perform individual actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description emphasizes efficiency ('one round-trip') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for partial setups). It implies use for full session initialization, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative 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?
The description discloses that if a locator already exists at the exact time, it renames it rather than adding a duplicate. This is a key behavioral trait not captured by annotations (which are absent).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first clearly states the action, and the second adds important behavioral nuance. No extraneous information, and it is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenario, and edge case behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds context that 'time' is arrangement time and 'name' is the locator name, but does not specify units or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial, but the description provides basic clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds a named locator (cue point) at arrangement time, and specifies it is useful for marking boundaries like verse/chorus. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools as no other tool adds locators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for marking musical sections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or comparison to other 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 fully discloses behavioral details: it explains how numeric fields are linearly interpolated and categorical pools are selected based on ratio. It also clarifies that the tool is currently solo-only, providing essential transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it avoids unnecessary verbosity and effectively communicates key information in a few sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 params, no output schema), the description explains the blending logic well but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify what the generated solo contains or how it integrates with the session (though implicit from track/clip indices). The reference to add_personality is helpful but incomplete without that tool's description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does 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 explains the three unique parameters (personality_a, personality_b, ratio) well, but for the remaining 7 common parameters it only references 'same as add_personality', which is insufficient standalone guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a solo from a blended personality interpolated between two real personalities. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_personality' and 'add_personality_solo' by specifying the blending aspect and referencing 'same as add_personality' for common arguments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a blended solo personality is desired, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context.
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 provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing notes, what happens if the clip doesn't exist, or any error behavior. It only states it writes chords into the clip, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input details well but lacks information on return value, error handling, and whether the operation is additive or destructive. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: target clip, chords with examples (e.g., ['Cm', 'Fm', 'G7']), rhythm with possible values, and defaults for octave and velocity. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it writes a chord progression into an existing MIDI clip, with specific parameter examples like chord symbols and rhythm values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip, which is more general.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies that the clip must already exist and explicitly recommends using create_clip_with_notes in the same call, providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not compare with alternatives like add_notes_to_clip or mention when not to use this tool.
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?
Although no annotations are provided, the description explains the operation is a copy (non-destructive), specifies arrangement_time in beats, and mentions the BETA state and API requirement. It does not detail return values or error handling but is fairly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, beta context, API requirement, and recommended prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, one parameter, and a prerequisite. However, it lacks details on return value, error cases, and indexing conventions, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that arrangement_time is in beats, but track_index and clip_slot_index receive no additional context (e.g., indexing convention). This adds value for one parameter but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it copies a session clip onto the arrangement timeline at a specified time in beats, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like duplicate_clip and bounce_session_to_arrangement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite (use get_arrangement_info to confirm support) and notes the feature is in BETA. It implies usage for moving clips to arrangement but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
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?
Discloses the side effect of index shifting and offers best-practice guidance, compensating for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple deletion but lacks mention of index base (0 or 1), error conditions, or undo capability, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter track_index is not described; schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no detail about indexing base or range, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Delete a track' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_track or duplicate_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance to delete in descending index order when batch deleting to avoid index drift, but does not cover when or when not to use the tool.
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 full burden. It explains the composite nature and 'first loadable match' but omits failure behavior (e.g., no match, load failure) and side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences and a parameter list. All information is front-loaded and necessary, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the composite behavior and all parameters, but lacks details on return values or error states. Given the tool's action-oriented nature and no output schema, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description text clearly defines each parameter's meaning, including the default for 'category'. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, though it could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is a convenience composite that searches the browser by name and loads the first loadable match onto a given track. It explicitly differentiates from siblings like 'search_browser' and 'load_browser_item' by indicating it combines them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the tool is a composite of two others, implying it should be used when a single step search-and-load is desired. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context from sibling tools provides good 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core algorithm (walk hints, search, load highest-scored), the replacement behavior of the Live API, and the return value. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites but is generally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: purpose, algorithm, important note (replacement), parameter descriptions, and return value. Each sentence serves a purpose, no fluff. It is concise yet informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the algorithm, parameters, and return values. It references list_personalities and BROWSER_HINTS adequately. Minor gap: no mention of fallback if search fails, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains track_index as 'target track', personality as 'any key from list_personalities', and prefer_preset as 'rank Instrument Racks above raw samples'. This adds context beyond the schema, though not exhaustive (e.g., no range for track_index).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the primary purpose: 'Load the best Ableton instrument for the named personality onto a track.' It explains the algorithm using BROWSER_HINTS and distinguishes itself from siblings like load_instrument_by_name by focusing on personality-driven selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a personality and want the best instrument, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not guidance. It lacks direct statements about when to use this vs. load_instrument_by_name or load_instrument_or_effect.
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 full burden. It transparently explains the mechanism (moving end_marker) and unit (beats from start_marker). However, it omits potential side effects like impact on loop or notes if present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. Front-loads the action ('Resize a clip') and immediately clarifies the key unit. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given 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, the description covers core behavior and units. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist) and error conditions, but these are minor gaps for this operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds critical meaning for the 'length' parameter by specifying its unit (beats) and reference point (start_marker). Track_index and clip_index are self-explanatory from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Resize a clip by moving its end_marker', providing a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fire_clip or delete_clip, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for resizing a clip length in beats, but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks comparisons to similar tools like set_clip_loop, which may also affect clip length.
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 explains the step-by-step behavior: clips are dropped onto arrangement starting at the running time cursor and advancing by bar_length. It notes the tool is BETA. However, it does not disclose whether existing arrangement clips are overwritten or if the tool is destructive, and no annotations provide additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured with a clear first-line purpose, followed by a brief behavioral explanation and bullet-pointed parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and a requirement. It could be more complete by explaining the result (arrangement timeline updated) and potential side effects, but it is sufficient for a tool of moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: scene_order as a list of scene indices with an example, and bar_length with a default value. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema property names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: "Render a sequence of scenes onto the arrangement timeline." It explains the process for each scene in order and distinguishes itself from siblings like fire_scene or add_clip_to_arrangement by focusing on a multi-scene bounce to arrangement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description positions the tool as "the closest thing to a one-call 'session sketch → arrangement' flow" and mentions a Live version requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives for single-clip placement, though the sibling list implies 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?
Without annotations, the description discloses clamping to min/max and raw value usage. It does not cover error handling or side effects, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear main sentence, a helpful usage hint, and a compact bullet list. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a setter mutation, the description covers prerequisites (discovery) and behavior (clamping). It omits return value or error cases, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning, indexing scheme, and providing an example value. This adds significant value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a device parameter on a track using a raw Live value, distinguishing it from normalized sets. It specifies the action and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description recommends using get_track_devices to discover parameter indices and ranges, providing clear context. It does not specify when not to use this tool but gives sufficient 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, the description carries full burden. It explains the generation process: 'Generates ascending/descending notes from the chosen scale, packed into the [start_beat, end_beat) range with note_duration per note.' It discloses the mutation behavior (writing into an existing clip) and parameter interactions, though side effects like overwriting are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clear, but slight redundancy exists (e.g., listing defaults already in schema). The structure is good but could be streamlined further.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter roles, and generation behavior. It does not address edge cases like exceeding clip length or overwriting notes, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by adding meaning: examples for scale ('C minor'), explanation of direction options, note_duration default, octave meaning, velocity range, and how parameters combine to fill the time range. This adds high value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Write a scalar run (sequence of notes from a scale) into an existing clip.' It specifies the action, resource, and distinguishes from siblings like add_notes_to_clip or add_chord_progression by focusing on scale-based runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for adding a scale run, and the examples like 'C minor' help clarify. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context from sibling tools suggests appropriate scenarios. Minor improvement would be adding conditional 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, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reports state, mentions BETA, and details the fields. It appropriately indicates no side effects (read-only).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the BETA label and main list, then elaborates on the most important field. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but the description adequately lists return fields. It could mention the return format (JSON) but is otherwise complete for a simple state report.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports arrangement-view state, listing specific items like capabilities, song length, loop region, locators, and per-track arrangement clips. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling action tools like add_clip_to_arrangement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining it provides capabilities that gate other BETA operations. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple read tool.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that personalities have 'tempo_sweet_spot' and 'tempo_range' and that beyond that range the generators emit warnings and scale density/swing. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent, though it can be inferred.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with markdown sections, clear role groupings, and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no input or output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (list grouped by role, with tempo information). It could have explicitly stated the return format (e.g., array of objects) but is sufficiently complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, as per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List every available personality style profile, grouped by role.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_personality and add_personality_solo by explaining how the output 'key' is used as an argument for those tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: to list personalities and obtain the key for other tools. It includes roles and example personalities, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools; however, the context is sufficient for an AI agent.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Discloses depth-first traversal, 50-result limit, case-insensitive search, and return fields. Lacks side-effect or authorization details, but these are not critical for a read-only search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences plus a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains return format (list with name, uri, path, is_loadable) and includes usage hint. Minor gap: order of results or sorting not specified, but overall sufficient for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description compensates fully: explains query as substring match with examples, and lists all enumerated category values. Provides meaning well beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Search the Ableton browser by name'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_browser_tree and get_browser_items_at_path by focusing on name-based substring search with depth-first traversal and result limit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States when to use (name-based search) and hints at next steps (pass uri to load_browser_item). Does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to alternatives, but provides sufficient context for typical use.
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?
The description discloses important behaviors: writing into an existing MIDI clip (mutation), drum personalities ignoring chord content, tempo range warnings but still producing output, compensation for density/swing, and default seed randomness. Without annotations, this provides comprehensive transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters. Each sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core functionality, parameter meanings, and edge cases. However, it does not mention the return value (since no output schema exists) and does not explicitly confirm that the clip is modified in place. These gaps slightly reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters: track_index and clip_index target clip, personality from list_personalities, chord_progression as list of chord symbols, bars_per_chord default, tempo with conditional query, octave_offset for register shift, and seed for reproducibility.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Generate a part in the style of a named personality and write it into an existing MIDI clip') and specifies the resource (existing MIDI clip). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that the personality's role determines the part type and references list_personalities for available personalities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for parameter usage (e.g., tempo can be omitted and will be queried via get_session_info, drum personalities ignore chord content) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like add_personality_solo or state when not to use this tool.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details scoring (Instrument Racks > Device Presets > bare devices > raw samples), filtering of one-shot junk and FX-only items, and best-first sorting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with no redundancy. Uses bullet points for roles and clear explanation of scoring. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While no output schema, the description explains scoring and sorting, but could briefly mention the output format (e.g., list of candidate names or paths). Still, it provides sufficient context for the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds full meaning by listing allowed roles for 'role' and explaining 'max_results' controls number of results. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool walks Ableton's browser for instruments suited to a specific role and returns quality-ranked candidates. It distinguishes from siblings like search_browser by specifying the role-based selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this when you don't know what's in the user's library and want a quick menu of options for a given track role. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context of sibling tools suggests alternatives.
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?
Fully discloses that it returns each device's parameters with current value, min, and max. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it adequately describes behavior with no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description completely covers the purpose, usage, and context. It references the sibling tool set_device_parameter, completing the usage workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (track_index) with no schema description. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it minimally does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists devices on a track with their parameters and values. The verb 'list' and resource 'track devices' are specific. Differentiates from siblings by mentioning use with set_device_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use this tool before calling set_device_parameter to discover parameter indices and ranges. Provides clear when-to-use and names an alternative tool.
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?
No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavior: atomicity, undo behavior, failure handling, and return structure. It clearly states the batch runs atomically and stops at first failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: purpose first, then atomicity, failure, parameter details, and return shape. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return object fully with fields like results, executed, total, failed_at, error. It covers all relevant aspects for a batch execution tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% but the description provides detailed parameter semantics: 'commands: list of {"type": str, "params": dict}' with allowed types and prohibition of nesting. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a list of commands in a single round-trip to Ableton.' It specifies atomic execution and distinguishes from sibling tools which are individual commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (batch with atomic undo) and constraints (stops on first failure, no nesting). It implies alternatives by listing sibling tools but does not explicitly state when not to use.
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:

[![ableton-mcp-lofifren MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LofiFren/ableton-mcp-lofifren/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LofiFren/ableton-mcp-lofifren)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp-lofifren MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LofiFren/ableton-mcp-lofifren/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LofiFren/ableton-mcp-lofifren)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/LofiFren/ableton-mcp-lofifren'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server