Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP Extended

Ableton MCP Extended

by RichieMiller-HU
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_track_pan

Set a track's stereo panning position with a value from -1.0 (full left) to 1.0 (full right). Center is 0.0.

Instructions

Set a track's stereo panning position.

Parameters:

  • track_index: The index of the track

  • pan: Pan value -1.0 (full left) to 1.0 (full right); 0.0 = center

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>",
      "pan": "<pan>"
    },
    "name": "set_track_pan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
panYes
track_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness4/5

Given 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.

Parameters3/5

Does 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.

Purpose5/5

Does 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 Guidelines3/5

Does 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools