Ableton MCP Extended
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. Playback controls, track operations, clip manipulation, device parameters, browser navigation, and undo/redo are all separate, with no overlapping functionality. Tools like fire_clip/stop_clip and start_playback/stop_playback operate at different levels, avoiding ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_midi_track, set_track_mute, get_session_info). Standard names like undo and redo fit the pattern. No mixing of casing conventions; all snake_case.
Tool Count3/552 tools is high compared to typical MCP servers and might overwhelm agents. However, the scope of controlling a full DAW like Ableton Live justifies many operations. Each tool serves a specific need, so the count is borderline but not excessive for the domain.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers a wide range of operations: session control, track and clip management, note editing, device parameters, browser, drum pads, bounce, and undo/redo. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no automation or grouping), but core workflows are well-covered.
Average 3.8/5 across 52 of 52 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic effect. It does not disclose potential side effects, required prior states (e.g., clip must be playing), or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point. However, the parameter descriptions are redundant with the parameter names and could be omitted or integrated more efficiently. It is not verbose but also not optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action tool, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not mention what happens if the clip is already stopped, if indices are out of range, or any relation to other tools like fire_clip. Despite having an output schema, no return value context is given.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the descriptions ('The index of the track containing the clip', 'The index of the clip slot containing the clip') add minimal meaning beyond the parameter names. They are concise but do not clarify indexing conventions or bounds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop playing a clip') and the resource (a clip). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like stop_playback (stops all playback) and fire_clip (starts a clip).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as when a clip is already stopped or when to use stop_playback instead. No usage context or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether notes are added to existing notes or overwrite them, or if there are constraints on pitch or timing values. The description only states what the tool does without additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters, which is reasonably structured. However, it could be more concise by moving parameter details to the schema, and some of the parameter descriptions could be more terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., invalid note data) or explain the return value (though an output schema exists). The description lacks details on behavior when notes already exist or when the clip is not a MIDI clip.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing parameters and briefly explaining their roles (e.g., 'notes: List of note dictionaries, each with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, and mute'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the description is not exhaustive (e.g., no default values, no constraints).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add MIDI notes to a clip') and the resource ('clip'). It is a specific verb-noun pair that distinguishes the tool from other clip-related tools like 'get_clip_notes' or 'update_notes', though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., 'update_notes' or 'remove_notes_in_range'). It does not mention prerequisites or conditions under which the tool should or should not be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it triggers transport, respects follow actions, or any side effects. No annotations are provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but poorly structured; it lists parameters without a clear format. Every sentence earns its place but lacks organization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or any side effects. It lacks completeness for a playing action, such as handling of empty clips.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the parameters by explaining what track_index and clip_index refer to, going beyond the bare schema titles. However, it is basic and does not cover edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Start playing a clip', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like start_playback or stop_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_playback or stop_clip. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. With no annotations provided, the description should cover effects like session state changes, whether it is safe to call multiple times, or any side effects, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but includes an unnecessary 'Parameters:' line with no content, which mildly detracts from structure. It could be improved by removing that line.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description could mention what the return value or side effect is, which is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the empty 'Parameters' line is harmless but redundant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop playing') and the resource ('Ableton session'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'start_playback' by being the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description does not mention behavior beyond creation: no info on error conditions (e.g., slot occupied), default length, or return value. No annotations provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. Parameter list is clear but could be better structured (e.g., requirements or outputs).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given lack of annotations and output schema details, description fails to explain important behavior (e.g., overwrite behavior, invalid index handling). Not complete for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description repeats parameter names and adds brief context (e.g., 'index of the track'), but with 0% schema description coverage, it does not sufficiently compensate. Meaning is largely redundant with schema titles and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action: 'Create a new MIDI clip in the specified track and clip slot.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_audio_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_notes_to_clip, create_audio_clip) or prerequisites (e.g., track must exist, slot must be empty).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'set the name'. No mention of overwriting behavior, case sensitivity, or other 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short and includes a list, but parameter descriptions are redundant with names. Could be more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal description for a simple setter. Lacks details on return value, error handling, or prerequisites. Output schema exists but description does not leverage it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions restate names ('index of the track', 'new name') without adding meaning such as valid ranges or format constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, so description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Set the name of a track' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_solo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Set the name', implying mutation, but omits side effects, reversibility, or constraints like name length or uniqueness. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clear parameter breakdown. No redundant information, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't mention the output (though an output schema exists), and lacks examples or edge cases. The example 'INTRO', 'HOOK' helps but is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds necessary context: 'scene_index' is explained as 'The index of the scene' and 'name' as 'The new scene name'. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema's type/title, but lacks details like valid ranges or formatting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'name of a scene' with an example ('INTRO', 'HOOK'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_name and set_clip_name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. The description only lists parameters without context on appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the basic action and that it empties the slot, but lacks details on whether deletion is irreversible, how it affects arrangement clips, or error behavior. With no annotations, more disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though the parameter list could be integrated into a single sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks context about recovery, preconditions, or scope of effect. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters as index of track and clip slot. However, it does not specify zero-based indexing or behavior for invalid indices, so it adds basic but incomplete meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool deletes a clip in a specified track/clip slot and empties the slot. It uses specific verbs and resources, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like fire_clip, stop_clip, or clear_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., remove notes, stop playback). It does not mention prerequisites like the slot being occupied or potential side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only indicates that the tool retrieves a tree of categories, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, any state dependencies, or error conditions. More context about the output structure would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using just two sentences to state the purpose and list parameters. It is front-loaded with the key action and provides the parameter list in a clear format with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could be improved by clarifying how this tool relates to ‘get_browser_items_at_path’ (e.g., tree vs. items at a path) to provide complete context for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only specifies a string parameter with default 'all', with no enum values. The description adds substantial value by listing all allowed values ('all', 'instruments', 'sounds', 'drums', 'audio_effects', 'midi_effects'), which compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Get a hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_browser_items_at_path', which might also deal with the browser hierarchy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'get_browser_items_at_path'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help the agent choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses one behavioral trait (appending at end) but omits side effects, required permissions, impact on session state, or return value details. For a tool that creates a new element, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but ends awkwardly with 'Parameters:' and no content. While it is concise, the incomplete section detracts from structure. Every sentence earns its place, but the trailing colon is a minor flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core function. However, it lacks context about the initial state of the created track (e.g., empty, with default settings) and does not explain how it relates to sibling tools like set_send_level or get_return_tracks, which would help complete the picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and there is no need to describe parameters. The description's mention of 'Parameters:' is incomplete but harmless. The behavioral note about appending adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'return track', explicitly calling it a 'send/FX' track, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_audio_track. It also specifies that return tracks are 'appended at the end of the return track list.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as create_midi_track or get_return_tracks. It does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only mentions the action without disclosing behavioral traits like prerequisites, side effects, or error handling. The agent is left uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence plus parameter list. Every word earns its place. Highly concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose and parameters but lacks context on behavior, edge cases, or expected outcomes. An output schema exists but is not visible. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing parameters with brief examples (e.g., 'Drums/Drum Rack'). This adds meaning beyond types but is still minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it loads a drum rack and then a specific drum kit. This is specific and distinguishes from generic load tools like load_instrument_or_effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as load_instrument_or_effect or load_sample_to_drum_pad. The agent has no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states the action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether arming triggers immediate recording), permissions needed, or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but includes a parameter list that largely duplicates the input schema. Could be tighter by omitting the list and integrating meanings into the prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks information on error conditions, edge cases (e.g., arming an already armed track), or constraints (e.g., track must exist). Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters in plain language: track_index and armed (true to arm, false to disarm). This adds value beyond the bare schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool arms or disarms a track for recording/input monitoring, with a specific verb ('arm/disarm') and resource ('track'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_solo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_track_monitor, set_track_mute). No prerequisites or context provided for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Only states 'Mute or unmute a track' without specifying effects on playback, latency, or undo status. Minimal behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two short sentences and a bullet list. Every element serves a purpose; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple toggle tool. Output schema is present but not shown; description need not detail returns. However, lacks interaction details (e.g., does it affect playback immediately?)
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Explains mute as boolean (true/false) and track_index as index, adding meaning beyond schema (which only shows types). However, does not clarify what 'index' refers to (e.g., order in track list).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb (mute/unmute) and resource (track). Distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_solo or set_track_volume by focusing on mute state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites or context, such as whether track must exist or if playable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as cost, side effects, or prerequisites. Minimal context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no extraneous text, perfectly front-loaded and efficient for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is largely complete. It could specify what 'detailed information' includes, but that is covered by the output schema. Slight lack of detail prevents a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully describes its parameters. The description adds no additional parameter info, but the baseline of 3 is correct per the rule for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about the current Ableton session', specifying the verb 'Get' and resource 'session information'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info, which focus on tracks rather than the session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident as a session-level info getter, and siblings cover other aspects, so the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but not ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (set color) without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, permissions, or what happens if the track is invalid. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently explains the color formats. No unnecessary words. However, it lacks structured sections like 'When to use' or 'Note', which could improve clarity without increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the basic usage. However, it omits behavioral context such as error handling, range validation, or effect on playback, which for a setter tool in a DAW context could be relevant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the color parameter's format (0xRRGGBB int or [r,g,b] list). However, the track_index parameter is only minimally described as 'The index of the track', adding little beyond the schema. Overall, partial but meaningful addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a track's color and specifies the two acceptable color formats (int or list). It uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool sets color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to use the tool (parameters) but provides no guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, or when not to use it. Since it's the only color setter, usage context is minimal but still lacking explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only describes the basic action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if track_index is invalid, whether it affects playback, or if it's a safe operation. For a write tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could include more context without being overly verbose, such as mentioning the effect on playback or the range of track_index.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is somewhat complete but lacks information on error handling, default behavior, or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds brief explanations: track_index is the index, solo is True to solo, False to unsolo. This adds some meaning beyond the schema titles, but is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Solo or unsolo a track' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_arm by focusing solely on solo state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when wanting to change solo state, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_mute, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the index parameter but does not mention side effects, state requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences and a parameter note. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but given the existence of an output schema, it would benefit from mentioning what the return value is (e.g., track ID). The sibling context is not leveraged for differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the index parameter by specifying '-1 = append at end', which is not present in the schema (coverage 0%). This goes beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), resource (audio track), and context (in the Ableton session). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_return_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many creation siblings, this is a significant gap; the agent must infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., insertion behavior beyond index), undo support, or error handling for invalid index. Only states creation without deeper context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is highly concise: two sentences plus parameter list. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has an output schema (not described), but absence of detail about return values or error conditions is acceptable. However, for a simple creation tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks complete context (e.g., whether session must be open, what happens on failure).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the index parameter: 'The index to insert the track at (-1 = end of list).' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a new MIDI track in the Ableton session.' The verb 'create' and resource 'MIDI track' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_audio_track and create_return_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create audio track vs MIDI track). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether loading replaces existing devices, if it requires an existing track, or any side effects. The only additional behavioral clue is the URI format example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and front-loaded with the action. Two sentences plus a clean parameter list. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has output schema, so return values are handled elsewhere. However, missing context about prerequisites (track must exist) and side effects (replaces existing device?). Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 provides explanations for both parameters: track_index (track index) and uri (URI with example). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though more detail on URI formats or track_index range would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action: loading an instrument or effect onto a track using a URI. The verb 'Load' and resource 'instrument or effect' are specific. Differentiates from siblings like 'load_sample_to_drum_pad' and 'load_drum_kit' by covering general instruments/effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'load_sample_to_drum_pad' or 'load_drum_kit'). Does not mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It explains level normalization but omits side effects (e.g., overwrites existing automation, requires valid send, undo behavior). No mention of errors or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one-sentence action followed by a bulleted parameter list. No fluff; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple set operation with output schema present, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral depth and usage guidance. The tool could benefit from more context, but the basics are there.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: track_index and send_index definition, level range and mapping (0.0=off, 0.85≈0dB, 1.0=max). This significantly aids understanding beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set... send level') and identifies the resource ('a track's send level to a return track'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_pan by focusing on sends.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as using set_track_volume for direct volume control. No prerequisites or context provided; just the action and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only clarifies the index parameter behavior. Lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, or impact on existing scenes. Minimal transparency beyond parameter semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with a bullet for parameters. Front-loaded with the core action and instant clarity on the primary parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers creation intent and parameter behavior. Could mention output or constraints but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the index parameter's effect (-1 appends at end). Adds meaning beyond the schema's default value and title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool creates a new scene (Session-view row). Specifies the default index behavior (-1 appends at end). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_midi_track or create_audio_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusion cases. Agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set the tempo' without mentioning side effects, constraints (e.g., BPM range), or impact on playback. 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter listing is included but is redundant with the schema. It earns its place by adding the BPM unit.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description provides the parameter's meaning and unit. However, it does not mention the return value or any potential errors, which is acceptable for a straightforward setter but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds the unit 'BPM' to the parameter, which provides essential meaning beyond the schema's title 'Tempo'. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set the tempo of the Ableton session.' It uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('tempo of the session'), and is distinct from all sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to set tempo but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. There are no sibling tools that set tempo, so the lack of explicit guidelines is somewhat mitigated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description states 'Get detailed information' suggesting read-only but does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects or authorization needs; output schema exists but not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no unnecessary words; parameter listed clearly; efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema; description covers purpose and parameter adequately; could mention that output schema defines returned fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter is track_index; description adds 'the index of the track' which repeats schema; no clarification on zero-based indexing, valid range, or bounds; schema description coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets detailed info about a specific track in Ableton, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'track info'; distinguishes from sibling tools that set or modify track properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like get_session_info or get_return_tracks; usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It only states 'Start playing' without disclosing whether it toggles, handles already-playing state, or requires session to be stopped. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short, but the trailing 'Parameters:' line feels like a template artifact. Otherwise efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, lacks mention of return value or side effects, but output schema may compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description need not add param details. Baseline 4 applies as schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Start playing' and resource 'Ableton session', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like stop_playback or fire_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied but no explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives like fire_clip for specific clips or stop_playback. Provides no guidance on prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action. It does not state whether the operation is safe, reversible, or has side effects. For a simple view switch, it is acceptable but lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in one clear sentence. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the existence of an output schema (which likely covers the return value), the description is complete enough for a simple action. It clearly conveys the tool's core functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (0 params, baseline 4). The description mentions 'Parameters:' but does not add any semantics; however, with no parameters, no additional meaning is necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Switch' and clearly identifies the resource 'Ableton's main window' and the target 'Arrangement view'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings, none of which perform view switching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the quantization behavior (grid and amount) but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or works on all notes in the clip. It is somewhat transparent but lacks key behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence is useful. Front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic behavior and parameter semantics. However, it could mention that the modification is in-place and possibly irreversible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains the grid values (mapping numbers to durations) and the amount parameter (0-1 strength with examples). Track_index and clip_index are briefly described as 'which clip', which is sufficient but not deeply detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Quantize a MIDI clip's notes to a grid', which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_notes_to_clip' or 'update_notes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., clip must exist). It only states the action and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only safety, side effects, or error conditions. The tool is likely a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a parameter list. The key usage information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant content. It efficiently conveys the necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers the input and basic behavior. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely handles that. The description is sufficient for a simple browsing tool with one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'path' has no description in the input schema, but the tool description adds valuable context by specifying the format 'category/folder/subfolder' and noting that category must be a valid browser category. This goes beyond the schema's basic type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser.' It specifies the format for the path parameter and differentiates from sibling tool 'get_browser_tree' by focusing on a specific path rather than the entire tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the path format and mentions that category must be a browser category, implying the tool is for browsing. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus 'get_browser_tree' or other alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's output (list of mappings) but does not disclose read-only behavior, potential side effects, or return format. The output schema may cover return values, but the description could add more context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and an example. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, why to use it, and the parameter. Could be slightly improved by hinting at the output format, but output schema likely handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (track_index) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'The track holding the Drum Rack', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'drum pad names', with a concrete example (36=Kick 808). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_parameters by specifying it's for the first Drum Rack. However, it could explicitly differentiate from other query tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Call this before writing/fixing drum MIDI so you know what each pitch plays.' No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the guidance is clear for the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While the description indicates a movement action, it does not disclose side effects such as whether playback is affected or if the change is instantaneous. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus one parameter description, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential information. The parameter is well-explained, and the action is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the 'time' parameter with units (beats) and an example (8.0 = bar 3 in 4/4), adding meaning beyond the schema's 'type: number'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Move the arrangement playhead to a specific position', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_playback, stop_playback, and get_session_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., relative movement or start/stop). The description lacks exclusions or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool removes all MIDI notes and keeps the clip, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., on clip length, envelope data) or prerequisites (e.g., clip must be MIDI). The description is moderately transparent but lacks granular details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first explains purpose and utility, the second lists parameters. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded, with no redundant or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which need not be explained), the description covers the core action and parameters. It omits potential error conditions and prerequisites, but for a straightforward clear-notes operation, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 provides basic descriptions for both parameters ('track index', 'clip index'), but does not specify indexing conventions (0-based or 1-based) or constraints. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but not enough for a low-coverage scenario.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove ALL MIDI notes from a clip while keeping the clip itself', specifying the verb 'remove' and the resource 'MIDI notes from a clip'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_clip' which removes the entire clip, and 'remove_notes_in_range' which removes only a subset of notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: 'so you can rewrite it from scratch without deleting/recreating the slot'. This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies constraints (src has clip, dest empty) but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or whether the copy modifies the original or triggers playback. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no wasted words. It starts with a clear purpose, adds a practical use case, then lists parameters with required conditions. Well-organized and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters and a simple copy operation, the description covers the core semantics. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists (though not shown) reducing the burden. Minor gap: no mention of success/failure or error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It describes all three parameters with meaningful context: track_index as owning track, src_clip_index as source slot (must contain clip), dest_clip_index as target slot (must be empty). This adds significant value over the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it copies a clip (MIDI or AUDIO) from one slot to another empty slot on the same track. It explicitly contrasts with create_clip by noting it works for audio clips too, distinguishing it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit use case: 'place a loop into several scenes for live performance'. It states prerequisites (src must contain a clip, dest must be empty). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, though the comparison to create_clip offers some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation with no side effects, and lists the returned fields. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid indices or audio clips) and does not mention any constraints beyond the tool being for MIDI clips.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two short sentences plus parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first explains functionality and returned fields, the second restricts to MIDI clips. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (reading MIDI notes, 2 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, returned fields, parameter meanings, and type constraint. Minor gaps include lack of error behavior and absence of any mention of the output schema. But overall, it is substantially complete for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains track_index as 'The track holding the clip' and clip_index as 'The clip slot index (Session scene - 1)', providing meaningful context beyond the raw schema. This is sufficient for a 2-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'actual MIDI notes of a clip', and specifies the returned fields (pitch, start_time, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by limiting to MIDI clips only, and the sibling list includes related notes tools, making the purpose distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying 'MIDI clips only', which implies when not to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like add_notes_to_clip or update_notes, nor does it state when to use this tool over others. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions return of can_undo/can_redo flags but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with action and context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with output schema, description covers purpose and return values. Adequate, though could mention if redo is disabled.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; baseline 4 applies. Description adds no param info because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action (redo last undone action) and resource (Ableton Live undo history). Equivalent to known shortcut, implicitly distinguishing from 'undo' sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but context of 'redo' vs 'undo' is clear. Lacks guidance on preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states 'Set' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or constraints. For a simple setter, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a clean list of parameters. No redundant or unnecessary text. Front-loads the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and that an output schema exists (which need not be explained), the description covers all parameter semantics. It could optionally mention potential errors or validation, but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., 'The index of the track containing the clip'), which goes beyond the schema's bare type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the name of a clip,' specifying verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_name and create_clip, which handle different objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and the parameter list implies its usage. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the pan value range (-1.0 to 1.0) and meaning of 0.0 as center, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not mention behavior for invalid track indices or return value despite output schema existing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus parameter list. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is essential and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action and parameter meanings adequately. Could be slightly more complete with index bounds or error notes, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It explains pan value meaning well, but track_index is only described as 'The index of the track' without clarifying zero-based or one-based indexing, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Set a track's stereo panning position,' which clearly states the action (set) and resource (track pan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_mute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when adjusting pan, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_volume. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation is 'surgical' and describes parameters, but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the window is empty. A score of 3 reflects adequate but limited behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundant wording. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not required to explain return values), the description covers the essential inputs and purpose. It could benefit from noting index base (0-based) or edge cases, but it is largely complete for this filtering operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by listing all six parameters with explanations of their roles and defaults (e.g., 'from_pitch: lowest MIDI pitch to remove', 'time_span: window length in beats (-1 = to end of clip)'). This goes beyond the schema titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'surgically remove notes inside a pitch/time window of a MIDI clip, keeping everything else'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clear_clip_notes, providing a clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a direct contrast to clear_clip_notes ('unlike clear_clip_notes which wipes all'), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool for targeted removal rather than full clearing. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisites, but the contrast provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses version dependency and slot emptiness but omits error handling (e.g., file not found, slot occupied) and side effects (e.g., file loading). Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise: one-sentence summary, version requirement, then parameter list. No fluff, well-structured, and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, preconditions, version, and parameters. Output schema exists but not detailed. Missing error behavior and return value description. Fairly complete for a 3-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates with clear parameter explanations (track_index, clip_index, path) and additional constraints (audio track, empty slot). However, supported file types are only exemplified (e.g., .wav) without full list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'create a new audio clip in an audio track's clip slot by importing a file,' specifying the verb, resource, and action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_clip' (likely for MIDI) and 'bounce_midi_clip_to_audio'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides specific version requirement (Ableton Live 12.0.5+) and preconditions (audio track, empty slot). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'create_clip' or 'bounce_midi_clip_to_audio'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains the clip is placed on the same track and uses Live's API, but does not cover error cases (invalid indices, empty clip) or side effects (overwriting existing clips).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a brief summary, API note, workflow, and parameter list. No unnecessary information; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and a clear purpose, the description covers typical usage and workflow. Output schema may provide return info, so omission is acceptable. Still, error handling and edge cases are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description adds value by explaining each parameter's meaning and providing example values for destination_time (e.g., 0.0 = start, 8.0 = bar 3).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it copies a Session-view clip into the Arrangement timeline. Specifies the API used and placement at destination_time beats. Distinguishes from sibling duplicate_clip_to_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a typical workflow (create clip, duplicate, switch view) that clarifies when to use this tool. Implicitly excludes other scenarios like inter-track duplication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the behavior (setting loop/markers, partial updates, units in beats) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility. Adequate although more specificity would help.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise: one sentence for purpose, one for behavior, then a bullet list of parameters. No wasted words, front-loaded with main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (not shown), return values need not be described. The description covers the core functionality, partial updates, and parameter units. However, it omits constraints like value ranges or interaction with other clip properties.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains each parameter with purpose (e.g., 'which clip', 'enable/disable looping', positions in beats). This adds value beyond the schema's names/types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a clip's loop and start/end marker properties (in beats).' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like fire_clip, stop_clip, or set_clip_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Only the parameters you pass are changed,' implying partial updates. It implicitly tells when to use (to modify loop/marker properties) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that value is clamped to min/max and parameter can be index or name. However, no annotations exist, so description should also cover side effects or permissions; it does not, so transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief, well-structured with bullet-point parameters, and front-loads the core purpose. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all four parameters, prerequisites, and value clamping. Does not explain return value, but output schema exists. Overall complete given complexity and available annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: track_index, device_index, parameter (int or string), value (number in its own units, example dB). Adds examples and usage details beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Set a device parameter' with specific examples (e.g., a Utility's Gain, a Compressor's Threshold) and distinguishes it from sibling 'get_device_parameters' by focusing on writing vs reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to call 'get_device_parameters first to see names/ranges', providing clear prerequisite guidance. No when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the instruction is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that tool sets monitoring state but does not detail side effects (e.g., audio routing changes) or required permissions. For a simple setter, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs: purpose first, then value mapping and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information for correct invocation. Could mention return value or error cases, but output schema likely covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning by explaining track_index as index and state with both string and numeric options. However, it does not specify zero-based vs one-based indexing, leaving minor ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'a track's input monitoring', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_solo, which operate on different properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit mapping of state values (in/auto/off) with examples (mic for 'in'), guiding correct usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but given the simplicity and lack of direct alternatives, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly implies a read-only operation by describing what is listed, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, sorting, or error conditions. This is adequate for a simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences convey the purpose, usage context, and parameter descriptions with no wasted words. Front-loads the primary action and return structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description fully covers the tool's function, parameters, and usage context. No significant gaps remain for this simple parameter listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage per context, but the tool description explicitly explains both parameters: track_index as 'The track holding the device' and device_index as 'The device's index in that track's chain (0 = first)'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists every parameter of a device with specific fields (index, name, current value, min, max). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a prerequisite for set_device_parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this before set_device_parameter to find the right parameter and its range.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it could elaborate on when not to use it (e.g., if parameters are already known).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses output contents (names and devices) but does not cover additional behavioral traits such as error cases, empty returns, or performance implications. With no annotations, the description could be more thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with action and details. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema that presumably documents return values, the description fully covers usage and purpose. No gaps observed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema, which already has 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists return tracks with their names and devices, using the 'A, B, C…' notation. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_track_info or set_send_level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using this tool before set_send_level to discover return track indices. This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (Drum Rack must already be loaded) and the parameter meanings, but does not specify whether loading a sample onto an occupied pad replaces it, what happens on failure, or any side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences for the action and prerequisite, followed by a clear bulleted parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, prerequisite, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics well. It does not describe the return value, but the output schema likely covers that. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or behavior on duplicate pads.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: track_index (track holding Drum Rack), pad_note (MIDI note number with examples), item_uri (browser URI from get_browser_items_at_path). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: load a browser sample onto a specific pad of a Drum Rack. It distinguishes from sibling tools like load_instrument_or_effect (loads an entire device) and load_drum_kit (loads a full kit), making the specific use case unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool (to build a custom drum kit pad-by-pad) and provides prerequisite steps (using load_instrument_or_effect). It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it or mention of alternatives like load_drum_kit, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly identifies the operation as destructive and explains the side effect of re-indexing. This is transparent for a simple delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences for the main behavior and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation. It does not mention potential error cases (e.g., invalid index), but the context signals indicate low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the role of track_index and the effect of deletion on indices, which the schema alone does not convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a track by its index.' This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_clip or create_midi_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the effect on track indices ('Indices of later tracks shift down by one'), giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude any usage scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation. It lists the return fields, which gives a good sense of what the tool does. However, it does not mention edge cases like empty tracks or order of clips, but for a list tool, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three short sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence gives the purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third explains the parameter. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, list output) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description provides enough context. It lists the return fields, so even without the output schema, an agent understands what to expect. It is complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. It provides a clear explanation for the single parameter 'track_index' as 'the index of the track to inspect', adding meaning beyond the schema definition. This adequately fills the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'clips in the Arrangement timeline for a track'. It also specifies the return fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Among siblings, no other tool lists arrangement clips, so it is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: to inspect clips in the arrangement view for a given track. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the simple nature, the context is clear enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that each call is a single instantaneous sample and describes the return values. This is adequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by return format and usage pattern.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool snapshots output meter levels for every track and the master, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as none other deals with meter reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It advises calling repeatedly during playback to poll levels, providing clear context on when to use. It does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the matching logic (pitch + start_time with tolerance) and that it doesn't clear/rewrite. It could mention what happens if no match is found or return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with key purpose and benefit, followed by matching logic and parameter details. No redundant sentences; efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main usage and parameter details. Output schema exists so return values are excluded. Missing edge cases but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed parameter explanations including the updates list structure, required fields, optional new_* fields, and tolerance default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it surgically modifies existing notes in a MIDI clip without clearing/rewriting, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_clip_notes and add_notes_to_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly recommends this tool over clear_clip_notes + add_notes_to_clip, providing clear guidance on when to use it. However, it doesn't cover all alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavior: value is normalized 0.0-1.0, with specific dB mapping (~0.85 = 0 dB, 1.0 = +6 dB). Although no annotations exist, the description provides enough context for safe invocation. Could mention if it affects automation or is real-time, but still strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact and well-structured: primary sentence, then alternative suggestion, then parameter list. No fluff. Slightly redundant because parameters are listed in schema, but still helpful for quick reference.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers usage, value mapping, and an edge case (need for more gain). Could optionally mention if the change is immediate or whether it affects existing automation, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates: defines both parameters explicitly, including track_index as 'The index of the track' and value as 'Normalized volume 0.0-1.0' with dB mapping. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb-resource pair: 'Set a track's mixer fader'. Distinguishes from siblings like set_track_mute or set_track_solo by specifying the exact function. Also clarifies the normalized value mapping, adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'For bigger gain than the fader allows, add a Utility device and use set_device_parameter on its Gain.' This tells the agent not to use this tool for high gain scenarios and provides a direct alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by stating that the tool returns 'can_undo' and 'can_redo' flags after the operation, informing the caller about further undo/redo availability. This surpasses simply describing the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action, the second details the return value. No filler or redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and a clear output schema (implied by the description of returned flags), the description is complete. It covers the action, equivalent keyboard shortcut, and post-operation state flags, leaving no gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and output. This meets the baseline for 0-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool undoes the last action in Ableton Live, using the familiar analogy 'equivalent to Cmd+Z'. This verb+resource combination leaves no ambiguity about its function and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'redo'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to revert the last action), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For a single-purpose undo tool, this is sufficient, though explicit exclusions could elevate the score to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behaviors: real-time resampling, audible playback, track creation or reuse, post-FX routing, same scene row recording, auto-stop after clip length + tail, immediate return, and the need to wait. It also warns against session changes during recording. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is about 10 sentences, well-structured with a summary first, then details, then parameters. It is clear and front-loaded. A slight reduction in redundancy could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, the description is comprehensive. It covers the process, timing, warnings, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains every parameter: track_index (source MIDI track), clip_index (source clip slot, recording lands in same slot row), extra_tail_beats (extra beats for reverb/delay tails, default 4), dest_track_index (existing audio track or -1 to create new '[BOUNCE]' track). The description provides context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('bounce', 'record') and resource ('MIDI clip's audible output to an audio clip'). It distinguishes itself by mentioning 'Live's Freeze/Flatten is not automatable', which clarifies why this tool exists. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to convert MIDI to audio) and provides important usage context: 'Returns immediately — wait the reported duration_seconds, then verify with get_track_info / get_arrangement_clips.' It also warns 'don't change the session while recording.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but given the specialized nature, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is returned (index, name, tempo hint, empty flag) and implies no side effects. Could mention it reads the current session state but is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and results. Every detail earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no parameters and an output schema existing, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and usage. Sibling tools are numerous but the description clearly differentiates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is irrelevant. According to guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. Description adds context about what the tool returns beyond the parameter schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'all Session scenes'. It enumerates what is listed (index, name, tempo hint, emptiness), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_session_info or get_track_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use before firing/organizing scenes', providing clear when-to-use guidance. No need for exclusions given the tool's straightforward nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RichieMiller-HU/ableton-mcp-extended'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server