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

ableton-mcp-lofifren

by LofiFren
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_track_pan

Set the stereo panning of a specific track in Ableton Live. Specify track index and pan value from full left (-1.0) to full right (1.0), with 0.0 center.

Instructions

Set the panning of a track.

Parameters:

  • track_index: The index of the track

  • pan: Panning from -1.0 (full left) to 1.0 (full right). 0.0 is center.

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>",
      "pan": "<pan>"
    },
    "name": "set_track_pan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes
panYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools