Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LiveSession MCP

LiveSession MCP

by Uri-Rosen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

crop_clip

Destructive

Crops an Ableton Live clip to its loop or start-end region by track and clip index, optionally in arrangement view.

Instructions

Crop a clip to its loop/start-end region.

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>",
      "clip_index": "<clip_index>"
    },
    "name": "crop_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clip_indexYes
arrangementNo
track_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description does not explain what content is discarded, whether the operation is undoable, or how the 'loop/start-end region' is determined, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a destructive edit.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is structurally clean, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a destructive clip-editing operation, three undocumented parameters, and no explanation of the arrangement flag, this description is too thin. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the mutation semantics and parameter meanings remain incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It never mentions track_index, clip_index, or the arrangement flag, so the agent gets almost no meaning beyond the loose word 'clip'.

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 ('Crop a clip') plus the target region ('loop/start-end region'), so the basic action is clear. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings such as set_clip_loop, duplicate_clip_region, or transform_clip, which also manipulate clip regions.

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 guidance on when to use this versus set_clip_loop, duplicate_clip_loop, duplicate_clip_region, or transform_clip. An agent must guess whether cropping is destructive, non-destructive, or related to loop settings.

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