Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP Extended

Ableton MCP Extended

by RichieMiller-HU
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_track_monitor

Configure a track's input monitoring mode. Options include always hearing live input, monitoring only when armed, or turning monitoring off.

Instructions

Set a track's input monitoring. Use 'in'/0 to always hear the live input (e.g. a mic), 'auto'/1 for monitor-when-armed, 'off'/2 for none.

Parameters:

  • track_index: The index of the track

  • state: 'in'|'auto'|'off' or 0|1|2

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>",
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "set_track_monitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYes
track_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness4/5

Given 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.

Parameters4/5

Does 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.

Purpose5/5

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 '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 Guidelines4/5

Does 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools