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

ableton-mcp-lofifren

by LofiFren
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

duplicate_clip_to

Duplicates a clip to an empty clip slot on the same track in Ableton Live.

Instructions

Duplicate a clip to another clip slot on the same track.

Parameters:

  • track_index: The index of the track containing the clip

  • clip_index: The source clip slot index

  • target_clip_index: The destination clip slot index (must be empty)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "clip_index": "<clip_index>",
      "target_clip_index": "<target_clip_index>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_clip_to"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes
clip_indexYes
target_clip_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools