Skip to main content
Glama
LiveSession MCP
by Uri-Rosen

insert_device

Adds a named Ableton Live device (e.g., EQ Eight, Compressor, Utility) to a track chain at a specified position, avoiding a browser search.

Instructions

Insert one of Live's own devices by name ("EQ Eight", "Compressor", "Utility"...) at a chain position (-1 = end) — faster than a browser search.

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>",
      "device": "<device>"
    },
    "name": "insert_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceYes
positionNo
track_typeNotrack
track_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the key constraint that it only inserts Live's own devices and that position -1 means end of chain, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown names or whether the insertion shifts existing devices.

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 the action, examples, and the position sentinel; no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is routing/failure context (track_type semantics, unknown device name handling), which is a minor but real gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains 'device' with examples and defines position = -1 as end. It leaves track_index and especially track_type (default "track", presumably track/return/master) entirely unexplained, so only half the parameters gain meaning.

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 (insert) and resource (Live's own devices by name) with concrete name examples and the chain-position target. The phrase "Live's own devices" implicitly separates it from load_plugin/load_browser_uri, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 trailing note "faster than a browser search" implies the preferred path over search_browser/load_browser_uri, but usage is only hinted at. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer load_plugin for third-party devices or what to do if the requested name is not a native device.

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