ableton-mcp-lofifren

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

transpose_clip

Transpose all notes in a MIDI clip by a given number of semitones, clamping notes that exceed the MIDI range.

Instructions

Transpose every note in a clip by semitones (positive = up, negative = down). Notes that would land outside the MIDI range [0, 127] are clamped.

Implementation: read notes, mutate pitches, batch(remove + add).

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>",
      "semitones": "<semitones>"
    },
    "name": "transpose_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`track_index`	Yes
`clip_index`	Yes
`semitones`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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.

Deploy Server