Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ableton-mcp-lofifren

ableton-mcp-lofifren

by LofiFren
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_track

Create a MIDI or audio track in Ableton Live with optional name, instrument, volume, pan, and insert position in one call.

Instructions

Create a track with optional name, instrument, volume, and pan in a single round-trip.

Parameters:

  • type: "midi" or "audio"

  • name: optional track name

  • instrument_uri: optional browser URI to load (use search_browser first)

  • volume: optional 0.0-1.0 mixer volume

  • pan: optional -1.0 to 1.0 panning

  • index: insert position (-1 = end)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNomidi
nameNo
instrument_uriNo
volumeNo
panNo
indexNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools