Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP Extended

Ableton MCP Extended

by RichieMiller-HU
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_send_level

Set the send level from a specific track to a return track. Specify track index, send index, and level value from 0.0 to 1.0.

Instructions

Set a track's send level to a return track.

Parameters:

  • track_index: The index of the source track

  • send_index: The index of the send (0 = first return track / Send A)

  • level: Normalized level 0.0-1.0 (0.0 = off, 0.85 ~ 0 dB, 1.0 = max)

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>",
      "send_index": "<send_index>",
      "level": "<level>"
    },
    "name": "set_send_level"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelYes
send_indexYes
track_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness3/5

Given 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.

Parameters4/5

Does 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.

Purpose5/5

Does 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 Guidelines2/5

Does 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools