ableton-mind

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

clip_set_envelope

Replace all automation points for a clip envelope. Use to rewrite envelope for mixer or device parameters.

Instructions

Replace all automation points for one clip envelope. Use when the user wants a complete envelope rewrite for mixer or device parameters. NOT idempotent for partial edits; returns written point count and verification diff after hold-curve expansion.

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_slot_index": "<clip_slot_index>",
      "parameter_path": "<parameter_path>",
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "clip_set_envelope"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`track_index`	Yes
`clip_slot_index`	Yes
`parameter_path`	Yes	mixer.volume \| mixer.panning \| mixer.send.<i> \| device.<i>.parameter.<n>
`points`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states non-idempotence for partial edits and return of point count and verification diff. However, it doesn't explain side effects like destruction of existing points or prerequisites.

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?

Two concise sentences. First delivers purpose and usage, second adds critical caveats and return value. 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?

Covers usage context, behavioral notes, and return values. Lacks details on what happens with empty points array or validation, but schema covers point structure adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only parameter_path has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, leaving three parameters without semantic guidance beyond the schema.

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 'Replace all automation points for one clip envelope', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'arrangement_add_automation_point' which adds a single point.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants a complete envelope rewrite' and notes 'NOT idempotent for partial edits', giving clear usage context without naming alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.