Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LiveSession MCP

LiveSession MCP

by Uri-Rosen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

load_plugin

Destructive

Load a plug-in onto a track by fuzzy name: effects append to the chain end, instruments replace the track's instrument. Target tracks, returns, or the master.

Instructions

Load a plug-in onto a track by (fuzzy) name, e.g. "Pro-Q 4", "valhalla vintage", "Keyscape". Effects append to the end of the chain; instruments replace the track's instrument. track_type: "track" (default), "return" or "master" (track_index is ignored for master)

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "load_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
track_typeNotrack
track_indexNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description earns credit by explaining exactly what is destructive: effects append to the end of the chain while instruments replace the existing instrument. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., no fuzzy match found) or whether the operation is undoable, so it is strong but not fully transparent.

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?

Three compact sentences with the main action front-loaded and examples placed immediately after the fuzzy-name concept. The telegraphic phrasing ('Effects append…', the trailing track_type note in parentheses) is slightly terse but wastes no words.

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, so return values need not be described. For a destructive device-loading tool, however, the definition omits what happens when no plugin matches the fuzzy name, whether the plugin must first exist in the browser catalog, and any ordering/return semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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 the load. It defines the name parameter as a fuzzy match with examples, enumerates track_type values and its default, and notes that track_index is ignored for master. Only track_index's indexing convention is left implicit.

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 ('Load a plug-in onto a track') and clarifies the name matching is fuzzy, with concrete examples like 'Pro-Q 4' and 'valhalla vintage'. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as add_effect, insert_device, or load_instrument_or_effect, which keeps it 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives useful context (effects append, instruments replace) and explains the track_type options, which implicitly tells the agent when to use each mode. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools that also add devices or effects (add_effect, insert_device, load_instrument_or_effect), so the agent must infer the choice.

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