Skip to main content
Glama
LiveSession MCP
by Uri-Rosen

write_progression

Destructive

Write chord progressions in Roman numerals for any key and scale, then insert them into an Ableton Live track and clip with configurable voicing, pattern, bass, and velocity.

Instructions

Write a progression in roman numerals in any key, e.g. key="A", scale="minor", numerals=["i", "VI", "III", "VII"] or key="C", numerals=["I", "vi7", "IV", "V7", "bVII"].

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>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "numerals": "<numerals>"
    },
    "name": "write_progression"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
scaleNomajor
styleNoclose
centerNo
patternNoblock
add_bassNo
numeralsYes
velocityNo
clip_indexYes
track_indexYes
beats_per_chordNo

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 declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates data, but the description adds nothing about what is destroyed (clip note content overwritten?), how track_index/clip_index target the destination, or any side effects. For a destructive write tool the description should explain the overwrite behavior; instead it spends its space on format examples already implied by the name.

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 sentence plus two examples, front-loaded with the core action. Nothing is padded, though the second example largely repeats the first rather than covering undocumented parameters.

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?

With 11 parameters, a destructive annotation, and zero schema descriptions, the definition does far too little. Output schema coverage means return values needn't be explained, but the parameter and side-effect gaps leave an agent unable to call this correctly without trial and error.

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% across 11 parameters. The description clarifies only key, scale, and numerals through examples; style, center, pattern, add_bass, velocity, beats_per_chord, clip_index and track_index are undocumented anywhere, which is a serious semantic gap for a tool with this many knobs.

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 states a specific verb and resource – writing a roman-numeral chord progression into a clip – and two worked examples make the format unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like write_chords or write_named_progression, so it stops 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would choose write_progression over write_named_progression or write_chords, nor what prerequisites (existing track/clip, instruments loaded) apply.

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