Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LiveSession MCP

LiveSession MCP

by Uri-Rosen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_scene

Create a named or unnamed scene at a chosen index in Ableton Live's Session view; set index to -1 to append it at the end.

Instructions

Create a scene (row in Session view) at index (-1 = end), optionally named.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
indexNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds modest context (the -1 sentinel, optional naming) but says nothing about whether the new scene is empty, how it interacts with existing clips, or side effects on the session grid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with the key sentinel value front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the parenthetical placement makes it slightly denser than necessary.

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 two-parameter, zero-required creation tool with an output schema already covering returns and annotations covering side-effect safety, this is close to sufficient. It still leaves open how index insertion affects existing scene ordering, which matters for a mutation with a positional argument.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does cover both parameters, notably the non-obvious "-1 = end" sentinel for index and that name is optional. However, it omits indexing base, out-of-range behavior, and whether inserting at an index shifts existing scenes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a scene") and clarifies the domain concept with "(row in Session view)", which disambiguates against ambiguous uses of "scene". It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like delete_scene, fire_scene, or create_clip, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as create_clip, create_midi_track, or create_arrangement_clip, nor prerequisites (e.g., whether a track must be selected first). Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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