ableton-mind

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

device_inspect_patcher

Determine if a device has an inspectable Max for Live patcher. Returns availability and explanation when not accessible.

Instructions

Read-only Max for Live patcher discovery for a device. Use when deciding whether a device exposes inspectable M4L patcher metadata. Returns available=false with a reason when the target is not inspectable or the runtime lacks patcher access.

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>",
      "device_index": "<device_index>"
    },
    "name": "device_inspect_patcher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`track_index`	Yes
`device_index`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It declares 'Read-only' (no side effects) and describes the return behavior (available=false with reason). This is adequate for a simple discovery tool, though it omits potential error conditions or auth requirements.

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: two sentences that front-load key information (read-only, purpose, return behavior). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not fully explain the return structure (e.g., what 'available=true' looks like, full response fields). Combined with missing parameter semantics, the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably use this tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the two required parameters (track_index, device_index). The agent must infer their meaning from context, which is a significant gap. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, and this adds nothing.

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 a specific verb ('discovery') and resource ('Max for Live patcher'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like device_inspect_plugin by focusing on patcher metadata. The term 'Read-only' further clarifies the tool's nature.

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 specifies when to use ('when deciding whether a device exposes inspectable M4L patcher metadata'). Does not name alternatives but implies scope; the return behavior ('available=false with a reason') provides practical guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but is sufficient.

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