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

ableton-mcp-lofifren

by LofiFren
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_track_volume

Adjust the volume level of a specific track in Ableton Live, using an index and a volume value between 0.0 and 1.0.

Instructions

Set the volume of a track.

Parameters:

  • track_index: The index of the track

  • volume: Volume level from 0.0 (silent) to 1.0 (max). Default is ~0.85.

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>",
      "volume": "<volume>"
    },
    "name": "set_track_volume"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes
volumeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools