Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP Extended

Ableton MCP Extended

by RichieMiller-HU
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_track

Remove a track from your Ableton Live session by specifying its index. Subsequent tracks automatically renumber.

Instructions

Delete a track by its index. Indices of later tracks shift down by one.

Parameters:

  • track_index: The index of the track to delete

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>"
    },
    "name": "delete_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness4/5

Given 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.

Parameters4/5

Does 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.

Purpose5/5

Does 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 Guidelines4/5

Does 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools