AbletonMCP는 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP)을 통해 Ableton Live와 Claude AI를 연결하여 Claude가 Ableton Live와 직접 상호 작용하고 제어할 수 있도록 합니다. 이러한 통합을 통해 즉각적인 음악 제작, 트랙 생성 및 Live 세션 조작이 가능해집니다.
피드백을 주고, 영감을 얻고, MCP를 기반으로 더욱 발전해 보세요: Discord . Siddharth 제작
양방향 통신 : 소켓 기반 서버를 통해 Claude AI를 Ableton Live에 연결합니다.
트랙 조작 : MIDI 및 오디오 트랙을 생성, 수정 및 조작합니다.
악기 및 효과 선택 : Claude는 Ableton 라이브러리에서 올바른 악기, 효과 및 사운드에 액세스하여 로드할 수 있습니다.
클립 생성 : 노트를 사용하여 MIDI 클립을 만들고 편집합니다.
세션 제어 : 재생 시작 및 중지, 클립 실행 및 전송 제어
Related MCP server: AbletonMCP
이 시스템은 두 가지 주요 구성 요소로 구성됩니다.
Ableton Remote Script ( Ableton_Remote_Script/__init__.py ): 명령을 수신하고 실행하기 위한 소켓 서버를 생성하는 Ableton Live용 MIDI 원격 스크립트
MCP 서버 ( server.py ): 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜을 구현하고 Ableton 원격 스크립트에 연결하는 Python 서버
Smithery 를 통해 Claude Desktop용 Ableton Live 통합을 자동으로 설치하려면:
지엑스피1
Ableton Live 10 이상
Python 3.8 이상
Mac을 사용하는 경우 다음과 같이 uv를 설치하세요.
brew install uv그렇지 않은 경우 [uv 공식 웹사이트][ https://docs.astral.sh/uv/getting-started/installation/ ]에서 설치하세요.
⚠️ UV 설치 전 진행하지 마세요
Claude > 설정 > 개발자 > 구성 편집 > claude_desktop_config.json으로 이동하여 다음을 포함합니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"AbletonMCP": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"ableton-mcp"
]
}
}
}uvx를 통해 ableton-mcp를 영구적으로 설치하지 않고 실행하세요. 커서 설정 > MCP로 이동하여 다음 명령어를 붙여넣으세요.
uvx ableton-mcp⚠️ MCP 서버 인스턴스를 하나만 실행하세요(Cursor 또는 Claude Desktop에서 실행). 둘 다 실행하지 마세요.
이 저장소에서 AbletonMCP_Remote_Script/__init__.py 파일을 다운로드하세요.
폴더를 Ableton의 MIDI Remote Scripts 디렉터리에 복사하세요. OS와 버전에 따라 위치가 다릅니다. 다음 중 하나가 작동할 것입니다. 다음 링크를 확인해 보세요 .
macOS의 경우:
방법 1: 응용 프로그램으로 이동 > Ableton Live 앱을 마우스 오른쪽 버튼으로 클릭 → 패키지 내용 표시 → 다음으로 이동: Contents/App-Resources/MIDI Remote Scripts/
방법 2: 첫 번째 방법에 없으면 직접 경로를 사용하세요(XX를 버전 번호로 바꾸세요): /Users/[Username]/Library/Preferences/Ableton/Live XX/User Remote Scripts
Windows의 경우:
방법 1: C:\Users[사용자 이름]\AppData\Roaming\Ableton\Live xxx\Preferences\User Remote Scripts
방법 2: C:\ProgramData\Ableton\Live XX\Resources\MIDI Remote Scripts\
방법 3: C:\Program Files\Ableton\Live XX\Resources\MIDI Remote Scripts\참고: XX를 Ableton 버전 번호(예: 10, 11, 12)로 바꾸세요.
원격 스크립트 디렉토리에 'AbletonMCP'라는 폴더를 만들고 다운로드한 '__init__.py' 파일을 붙여넣습니다.
Ableton Live 실행
설정/환경 설정 → 링크, 템포 및 MIDI로 이동하세요.
컨트롤 서피스 드롭다운에서 "AbletonMCP"를 선택하세요.
입력 및 출력을 "없음"으로 설정하세요
Ableton Live에 Ableton Remote Script가 로드되었는지 확인하세요.
Claude Desktop 또는 Cursor에서 MCP 서버가 구성되었는지 확인하세요.
Claude와 상호 작용할 때 연결이 자동으로 설정되어야 합니다.
Claude에서 구성 파일을 설정하고 원격 스크립트를 Ableton에서 실행하면 Ableton MCP에 대한 도구가 있는 망치 아이콘이 표시됩니다.
세션 및 트랙 정보 받기
MIDI 및 오디오 트랙을 만들고 수정합니다.
클립 생성, 편집 및 트리거
재생 제어
Ableton 브라우저에서 악기와 효과 불러오기
MIDI 클립에 노트 추가
템포 및 기타 세션 매개변수 변경
클로드에게 요청할 수 있는 작업의 몇 가지 예는 다음과 같습니다.
"80년대 신스웨이브 트랙 만들기" 데모
"메트로 부민 스타일의 힙합 비트를 만들어 보세요"
"신스 베이스 악기로 새로운 MIDI 트랙을 만듭니다"
"드럼에 리버브를 추가해줘"
"간단한 멜로디로 4마디 MIDI 클립 만들기"
"현재 Ableton 세션에 대한 정보를 얻으세요"
"선택한 트랙에 808 드럼 랙을 로드합니다"
"트랙 1의 클립에 재즈 코드 진행을 추가합니다."
"템포를 120 BPM으로 설정하세요"
"트랙 2의 클립을 재생하세요"
연결 문제 : Ableton Remote Script가 로드되었고 Claude에 MCP 서버가 구성되어 있는지 확인하세요.
시간 초과 오류 : 요청을 단순화하거나 더 작은 단계로 나누어보세요.
전원을 껐다가 다시 켜보셨나요? : 여전히 연결 오류가 발생하는 경우 Claude와 Ableton Live를 다시 시작해 보세요.
이 시스템은 TCP 소켓을 통한 간단한 JSON 기반 프로토콜을 사용합니다.
명령은 type 과 선택적 params 포함하는 JSON 객체로 전송됩니다.
응답은 status 와 result 또는 message 포함하는 JSON 객체입니다.
복잡한 음악 편곡을 만들려면 더 작은 단계로 나누어야 할 수도 있습니다.
이 도구는 Ableton의 기본 장치 및 브라우저 항목과 함께 작동하도록 설계되었습니다.
광범위한 실험을 하기 전에 항상 작업을 저장하세요
기여를 환영합니다! 풀 리퀘스트를 제출해 주세요.
이것은 타사 통합이며 Ableton에서 만든 것이 아닙니다.
Add MIDI notes to a clip.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track containing the clip
clip_index: The index of the clip slot containing the clip
notes: List of note dictionaries, each with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, and mute
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| clip_index | Yes | ||
| notes | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without explaining side effects, whether notes are appended or replace existing ones, whether the clip is modified in place, or any error conditions. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then lists parameters with short explanations. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or wasted words. This is an efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after notes are added (e.g., return value, visual undo), any limitations (e.g., only applies to MIDI clips), or how the notes array is processed (append vs replace). Given the complexity of a MIDI editing tool, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: track_index and clip_index refer to the containing track and clip slot, and notes are described as a list of dictionaries with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, and mute. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types. However, it lacks units or value ranges, which would further improve clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add MIDI notes to a clip.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like create_clip (creating a clip) or fire_clip (triggering playback). It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_clip or fire_clip. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the target clip must exist and be a MIDI clip) or situations where it should be avoided. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new MIDI clip in the specified track and clip slot.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track to create the clip in
clip_index: The index of the clip slot to create the clip in
length: The length of the clip in beats (default: 4.0)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| clip_index | Yes | ||
| length | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic creation action and parameters, but does not address side effects (e.g., whether an existing clip in the slot is overwritten), required permissions, undo behavior, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds no context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: one sentence defining the purpose followed by a short, well-organized parameter list. Every line contributes useful information, with no redundancy or filler. The key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what and how, including the default for length. However, it omits context such as whether the clip is empty, whether it overwrites an existing clip in the slot, or any track prerequisites. Minor gaps, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only types and defaults (0% schema_description_coverage). The description compensates by clearly explaining each parameter: track_index is the track index, clip_index is the slot index, and length is in beats with a default value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare properties, though it could be even more detailed (e.g., valid ranges).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('a new MIDI clip'), and the target ('in the specified track and clip slot'). This verb+resource+location phrasing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_clip or stop_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage ('when you want to create a new clip') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No sibling differentiation or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new MIDI track in the Ableton session.
Parameters:
index: The index to insert the track at (-1 = end of list)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create a new MIDI track' without explaining side effects, undo behavior, permissions, or what happens to existing tracks. This is a significant lack of transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a clear parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only one parameter, and the description covers its purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context (e.g., what happens on creation), so it is not fully complete for an agent operating autonomously.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a title and default for the 'index' parameter with no description, so the description's explanation ('The index to insert the track at (-1 = end of list)') adds crucial semantic meaning. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb+resource combination: 'Create a new MIDI track in the Ableton session.' It unambiguously states the tool's function and is distinct from sibling tools like create_clip, which creates clips rather than tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. While it is implicit that this is for creating MIDI tracks, the description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or contrast with related tools like create_clip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start playing a clip.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track containing the clip
clip_index: The index of the clip slot containing the clip
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| clip_index | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without contextual details such as whether it stops other clips, requires a running transport, or what happens on invalid indices. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the basics: what it does and what the indices mean. However, it lacks any mention of side effects, error conditions, or how it interacts with overall playback state. Given no output schema, some extra context would be warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameters are explained in the description ('The index of the track containing the clip' and 'The index of the clip slot containing the clip'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's bare integer definitions. Both required parameters are covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Start playing a clip.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like stop_clip (which stops a clip) and start_playback (which likely starts general transport).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings. The status quo is clear but unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser.
Parameters:
path: Path in the format "category/folder/subfolder" where category is one of the available browser categories in Ableton
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' items, implying read-only, but does not describe potential error behavior, return format, or any side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: one clear sentence plus a short parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose makes it immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the path format, which is the key input. However, it lacks information about return structure, error handling, and how it relates to sibling tools, leaving some context missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines `path` as a string with no description. The description compensates by specifying the required format 'category/folder/subfolder' and clarifying that `category` must be one of Ableton's browser categories. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser.' The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource is the browser, and the scope is a specific path. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool `get_browser_tree`, which retrieves the entire tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_browser_tree`, nor does it mention any prerequisites or edge cases. The path format is explained, but the 'when' is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton.
Parameters:
category_type: Type of categories to get ('all', 'instruments', 'sounds', 'drums', 'audio_effects', 'midi_effects')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category_type | No | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states what it returns (a hierarchical tree) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any permissions needed, or how the tree is structured. It adds no behavioral details beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a clean parameter listing. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter, the description covers the purpose and parameter values. It does not mention the default 'all' or what the tree nodes look like, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete. However, it could state that it is a read-only operation or return format, which would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists the category_type parameter, explains its meaning ('Type of categories to get'), and enumerates allowed values ('all', 'instruments', etc.). This significantly adds to the schema, which only has the property name and default with no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets a hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton, using specific verb 'get' and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_browser_items_at_path, but the 'hierarchical tree' phrasing implies a structural overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as get_browser_items_at_path, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about the current Ableton session
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the tool's name with slightly more words and does not mention that the operation is read-only, what information is returned, or any potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource. It contains no redundant phrasing or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fails to specify what 'detailed information' includes or how it relates to other getter tools. The agent is left without a clear picture of the return value or the scope of 'session info'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which gives a baseline score of 4. The description neither contradicts the schema nor needs to explain parameter meanings since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed information about the current Ableton session', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_tempo or fire_clip. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_track_info or get_mixer. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about a specific track in Ableton.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track to get information about
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get detailed information' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or how errors like an invalid track_index are handled. This is a significant gap for a data-retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The parameter explanation is somewhat redundant with the parameter name, but it does not add unnecessary length, making it appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description needs to explain what 'detailed information' includes. It does not mention the return structure, possible fields, or any behavior, leaving the agent to guess. Even for a simple getter, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains track_index as 'the index of the track', which adds a basic role but not critical details such as range, base (0 or 1), or ordering. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning but fails to provide enough context for confident usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'a specific track in Ableton', which clearly differentiates from siblings like get_mixer or get_session_info. However, 'detailed information' is vague about what exactly is included, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mixer or get_session_info. There is also no mention of track indexing conventions (e.g., zero-based vs one-based) or prerequisites, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Load a drum rack and then load a specific drum kit into it.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track to load on
rack_uri: The URI of the drum rack to load (e.g., 'Drums/Drum Rack')
kit_path: Path to the drum kit inside the browser (e.g., 'drums/acoustic/kit1')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| rack_uri | Yes | ||
| kit_path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It states a two-step process (load rack then kit) but does not describe what happens if the track already contains a rack, whether the operation is destructive, or what errors may occur. The lack of output schema also leaves return behavior unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct: one sentence for the action and three bullet-like parameter explanations with examples. No redundant information is present, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core action and parameter meanings, but it lacks contextual details such as when to use the tool and behavioral side effects. It is adequate for a simple loading operation but incomplete for robust agent decision-making, especially with no annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by documenting each parameter: track_index, rack_uri (with example 'Drums/Drum Rack'), and kit_path (with example 'drums/acoustic/kit1'). This provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could further clarify indexing and path conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Load a drum rack and then load a specific drum kit into it.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'load_instrument_or_effect' by focusing on drum kits. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with that sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus 'load_instrument_or_effect' or other loading tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like existing tracks or whether it replaces existing racks. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Load an instrument or effect onto a track using its URI.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track to load the instrument on
uri: The URI of the instrument or effect to load (e.g., 'query:Synths#Instrument%20Rack:Bass:FileId_5116')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| uri | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details on side effects (e.g., whether the load replaces existing devices), prerequisites (e.g., track must exist, URI valid), or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. No filler or redundancy. The structure front-loads the main action and then details the inputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, what happens to existing track content, and whether any prerequisites exist. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the tool description should be more thorough. It is minimally adequate for a simple load operation but leaves many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter. The track_index is described as 'the index of the track to load the instrument on', and uri is described with an example 'query:Synths#Instrument%20Rack:Bass:FileId_5116', which helps clarify the expected input format. Schema descriptions are 0%, so this compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Load an instrument or effect onto a track'. It distinguishes from most siblings (playback, tempo, mixer tools), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the very similar 'load_drum_kit'. The resource is specific enough for basic identification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_drum_kit or other track-modification tools. The usage scenario is implied by the name and description, but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set the name of a clip.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track containing the clip
clip_index: The index of the clip slot containing the clip
name: The new name for the clip
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| clip_index | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action 'set name' without mentioning side effects, whether the operation overwrites the existing name, potential errors, or any safety considerations. This is minimal and could mislead an agent about reversibility or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary and information-dense. It front-loads the core action and then lists parameters, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not disclose expected return behavior, failure conditions, or whether the clip must exist. The description is adequate only for the most basic understanding but lacks critical context for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only titles with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does give brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'track_index: The index of the track containing the clip'), which clarifies their role. However, it does not go beyond obvious semantics and lacks constraints like valid ranges or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the name of a clip' which is a specific verb + resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_name by explicitly targeting clips, and from fire_clip/stop_clip by the action being a rename.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that set_track_name should be used for tracks, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set the tempo of the Ableton session.
Parameters:
tempo: The new tempo in BPM
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tempo | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set the tempo' without mentioning side effects, constraints (e.g., Ableton tempo range), or whether changes apply immediately to live playback. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of one sentence plus a parameter listing. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. This is a model of minimalism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with a single parameter, the description covers the core meaning and parameter, but it lacks behavioral context such as side effects, error conditions, or return behavior. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description alone is not fully complete, though it is serviceable for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description supplies the crucial semantic that the tempo is 'in BPM', which is absent from the schema (which only provides type and title). This adds real value beyond the structured data. However, it does not specify allowed ranges or default values, which would be even more helpful, but for a single parameter this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Set the tempo of the Ableton session', which is a specific verb + resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., set_track_volume, start_playback) as none of them handle tempo manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage context is implied by the tool name and description, but the description does not state any exclusions or mention when to prefer this tool over others. Since no tempo-related sibling exists, the ambiguity is low, but clear guidance is still missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set the name of a track.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track to rename
name: The new name for the track
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the basic operation and lists parameters. There is no disclosure of side effects, error handling, index base (0-based vs 1-based), or return behavior. Since no annotations exist, the description carries this burden but fails to address it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence and two parameter bullets. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits critical context such as whether the track index is zero-based, what happens on invalid input, and whether the change is immediately reflected. The agent may need to guess these details, making the description incomplete for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to both parameters by specifying that track_index is 'the index of the track to rename' and name is 'the new name for the track'. This compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions, but it does not clarify constraints like valid index ranges or name formatting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Set the name') on a specific resource ('a track'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_clip_name. However, it lacks additional context or scope, making it clear but not exceptionally helpful.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes the action without any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual advice for an AI agent deciding between related setter tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start playing the Ableton session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it resumes from current position), preconditions (e.g., an open session), or behavior if already playing. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is immediately informative. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action and target. No redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple transport control, the description gives the core function, but it lacks context about session state or how it differs from 'fire_clip'. Since there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context to be fully sufficient, yet the tool's simplicity keeps it from being inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. According to rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but it doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Start') and a clear resource ('Ableton session'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like 'stop_playback' and 'fire_clip' by referring to the session-level transport.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of related tools such as 'fire_clip' or 'stop_playback'. The expected context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, offering no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Stop playing a clip.
Parameters:
track_index: The index of the track containing the clip
clip_index: The index of the clip slot containing the clip
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| clip_index | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, idempotency, whether the clip must be currently playing, or how it interacts with clip slot state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single clear sentence and a simple parameter list. No unnecessary fluff, though the parameter descriptions could be integrated more naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stop operation, the purpose and parameters are covered. However, with no annotations, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus stop_playback and any behavioral context. Acceptable but incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, but the description clarifies that track_index is 'the index of the track containing the clip' and clip_index is 'the index of the clip slot containing the clip'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop playing a clip' clearly specifies the action (stop) and the resource (a clip). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fire_clip (which starts a clip) and stop_playback (which stops global playback).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_playback or fire_clip. The description does not mention relevant contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Stop playing the Ableton session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior; it only states the stop action without disclosing side effects like whether the playhead resets or all clips are stopped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient, though it could benefit from a note distinguishing session stop from clip stop.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the description cannot add param semantics; baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb 'stop' and the resource 'playing the Ableton session,' differentiating it from sibling tools like start_playback and stop_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus stop_clip or other playback controls; it only states the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
add_notes_to_clipcreate_clipcreate_midi_trackfire_clipget_browser_items_at_pathget_browser_treeget_session_infoget_track_infoload_drum_kitload_instrument_or_effectset_clip_nameset_temposet_track_namestart_playbackstop_clipstop_playbackScored across 16 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like clips, tracks, browser, or playback. However, fire_clip and start_playback could be slightly ambiguous as both initiate playback, though fire_clip targets a specific clip while start_playback affects the entire session. The descriptions help clarify this distinction.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive actions (e.g., add_notes_to_clip, create_clip, get_session_info). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
With 16 tools, this server is well-scoped for controlling Ableton Live, covering key areas like clip management, track operations, browser navigation, and playback control. Each tool serves a specific function without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for core Ableton workflows, including creating and managing clips/tracks, loading instruments/effects, and controlling playback. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for deleting clips or tracks, but agents can work around this by recreating or overwriting resources.
Generate AI music via the Lacuna Music API from MCP clients like Claude Desktop & Code.
Use AI models for chat, image, and video generation from Claude Code and other MCP hosts.
Talk to your public-facing AI from any MCP client — Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Cline, Windsurf.
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
