Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP Extended

Ableton MCP Extended

by RichieMiller-HU
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_scene_name

Rename a scene in Ableton Live's Session view by specifying its index and a new name.

Instructions

Set the name of a scene (Session-view row), e.g. 'INTRO', 'HOOK'.

Parameters:

  • scene_index: The index of the scene

  • name: The new scene name

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": {
      "scene_index": "<scene_index>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "set_scene_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
scene_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness3/5

Given 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.

Parameters3/5

Does 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.

Purpose4/5

Does 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 Guidelines2/5

Does 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools