Skip to main content
Glama
LiveSession MCP
by Uri-Rosen

delete_arrangement_clip

Destructive

Delete a specific Arrangement clip by track and clip index to remove unwanted clips from Ableton Live's Arrangement view. Use indices from get_arrangement_clips to target the exact clip.

Instructions

Delete an Arrangement clip (index as listed by get_arrangement_clips).

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": "delete_arrangement_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clip_indexYes
track_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the index source and does not discuss irreversibility, undo behavior, or side effects on arrangement data, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The essential action and index source are immediately clear.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations already cover safety and return behavior. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain both required parameters; it only partially covers clip_index and omits track_index, leaving a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially explains clip_index by tying it to get_arrangement_clips, but track_index is never mentioned or explained, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Arrangement clip'), which distinguishes it from the generic delete_clip and from get_arrangement_clips. It does not explicitly name a sibling or exclusion, but the resource specificity is enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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?

It tells the agent to obtain the clip index from get_arrangement_clips, providing an implicit prerequisite. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this instead of delete_clip, delete_scene, or other deletion tools, and no when-not conditions.

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