Skip to main content
Glama
LiveSession MCP
by Uri-Rosen

set_locator

Creates or renames a locator at a specified beat, waiting for Live's playhead to move first to ensure reliable placement.

Instructions

Create or rename a locator at a beat (reliable: waits for Live's playhead to move first).

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": {
      "time_beats": "<time_beats>"
    },
    "name": "set_locator"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
time_beatsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so mutation direction is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the reliability behavior ("waits for Live's playhead to move first"), which explains latency and why the call is safe against a stale transport position.

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 front-loaded sentence with the caveat in parentheses where it belongs. No wasted words, though the parenthetical caveat is compressed enough that its implications require interpretation.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for an upsert-style mutation the description omits the overwrite/merge semantics and the naming collision behavior, which are the main things an agent would want to know before calling.

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 the parameter burden. It hints that time_beats is a beat position and that name is optional (rename), but never explains units, what an empty name does, or what happens if a locator already exists at that beat.

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 or rename a locator at a beat"), so the operation is immediately clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling create_locator, leaving ambiguity about which tool to pick for a brand-new locator.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the closely related siblings create_locator, get_locators, or delete_locator. An agent must infer that this is the upsert/rename path, which is exactly the kind of routing decision the description should resolve.

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